The Froome Files, test data only thread

[Tonton]

Maybe Froome stole Cancellara's Delorean, went back to '07 and changed the data as well as the font.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Do some research on Ed Coyle, djpbaltimore, I think you missed my meaning.

 

[acoggan]

Re: Re:

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

3rd grader excuse for how it all went wrong

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.

Again, I haven't a clue why you're choosing to have a go at me. I was asked for my opinion, and I gave it. I'm not in the business of attempting to prove anybody to be clean or dirty, and have absolutely diddly-squat to do with Froome's testing (or with pro cycling in general, for that matter). Why you think that I'd spend my time even attempting to verify the authenticity of some obscure fax is totally beyond me (especially since the UCI doesn't know me from Adam, and we're talking about medical records here).

 

[acoggan]

Re:

Expert witness gig coming soon for Dr Swart yeah?

What, you mean like Ashenden?

 

[Merckx index]

Re: Re:

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.

As a scientist myself, I don't see that it was Andy Coggan's responsibility to verify that the FAX was genuine. His expertise is looking at numbers generated by a test, and interpreting them. It is not document analysis, nor is it incumbent on him to research the history of the lab and its tests at that 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.

If there is a problem, the people to blame are those who produced the document, not those who analyzed it.

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.

If you're saying that Coggan didn't investigate the FAX because it was in his best interest that it be assumed to be genuine, that is absurd.

Do some research on Ed Coyle, djpbaltimore, I think you missed my meaning.

I think Coyle deserves a lot of criticism for not even considering the doping possibility. But Andy Coggan did not co-author that study. I'm not familiar enough with Coggan's work to know if he ever cited it favorably, e.g., as evidence that efficiency can change with training. If he did, then I think he should be criticized for that, even if he wants to argue that doping would not affect efficiency. But the problem here is mostly Coyle, not Coggan.

 

[acoggan]

Re: Re:

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....

I'm trying to recall...was there any physiological data in the paper on Pinot beyond his VO2max? Also, was the latter measured more than once?

(I know it contained lots of power data from in the field, but that's not physiological testing.)

 

[Tonton]

I disagree with Andrew Coggan sometimes, i.e. the extrapolation of data, measured vs. potential (as in Froome's VO2Max, 84 or 88), but let's recognize that (and it's also true wrt merckindex):

1. He knows a lot more than we do.
2. Never have I read anything that he wrote that made me doubt his integrity.

Let's be a bit serious here.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Re: Re:

Do some research on Ed Coyle, djpbaltimore, I think you missed my meaning.

I think Coyle deserves a lot of criticism for not even considering the doping possibility. But Andy Coggan did not co-author that study. I'm not familiar enough with Coggan's work to know if he ever cited it favorably, e.g., as evidence that efficiency can change with training. If he did, then I think he should be criticized for that, even if he wants to argue that doping would not affect efficiency. But the problem here is mostly Coyle, not Coggan.

Why are you even writing this? Nothing I have written about Coyle other than Coggan lauding his Amrstrong study has anything to do with Coggan.

I am having a dig at Coyle.

I did not write nor even suggest Coggan co-authored the study. What are you on about?

 

[Dear Wiggo]

I disagree with Andrew Coggan sometimes, i.e. the extrapolation of data, measured vs. potential (as in Froome's VO2Max, 84 or 88), but let's recognize that (and it's also true wrt merckindex):

1. He knows a lot more than we do.
2. Never have I read anything that he wrote that made me doubt his integrity.

Let's be a bit serious here.

Given Coggan claims partial credit for Wiggins 2012 successes, via the same mechanism in place for Kerrison's alleged training of Froome, it seems strange he does not also claim partial credit for Froome's success as well.

The obfuscation employed in the Wiggins threads mid-2012 by Krebs and Coggan forever left a negative impression. Coupled with the ongoing defense and lauding of Coyle's Armstrong study, his "knowledge" holds no value for me.

 

[Merckx index]

I'm trying to recall...was there any physiological data in the paper on Pinot beyond his VO2max? Also, was the latter measured more than once?

No, and apparently no. And on the surface, the main difference between the two riders seems to be Froome’s adjusted V02max as 88, vs. 85 for Pinot. Pinot’s power at 30 min. was 6.1, if we assume the same threshold and efficiency, Froome’s would be 6.3, close to what Swart is claiming, though the exact time period is not specified, unlike with Pinot. And again, Froome’s power may be higher if FTP/peak power was underestimated in Swart’s study, and if the FTP is in fact for 40-60 minutes.

Why are you even writing this? Nothing I have written about Coyle other than Coggan lauding his Amrstrong study has anything to do with Coggan.

I am having a dig at Coyle.

I did not write nor even suggest Coggan co-authored the study. What are you on about?

Sorry, it’s hard to keep up. In the context of this thread, it would seem the only reason one would bring up Coyle is as an attack on Coggan.

Anyway, whatever sins the latter may have committed in the past—and I admit I didn’t follow the Wiggins story very closely—I don’t see how he can be blamed for the 2007 FAX.

 

[Jacques de Molay]

Re:

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

Worth posting the content.

Jeroen Swart
@JeroenSwart

For all of the crowd wildly speculating on the @Cyclingnewsfeed clinic: I wasn't paid to do any of the tests and I don't work for GSK.

Thought I'd just combine these two for reference.

Jeroen Swart
‏
@SamueleMarcora @Scienceofsport @Cyclingnewsfeed @GSK_HPL there would always be a hint of bias if I got paid. Never even considered it.

That's not the scenario I had originally imagined. Interesting discussion, and it's nice to have verification from the source.

 

[acoggan]

Coggan claims partial credit for Wiggins 2012 successes, via the same mechanism in place for Kerrison's alleged training of Froome, it seems strange he does not also claim partial credit for Froome's success as well.

I'm confused...are you saying that, like Wiggins, Froome also credited TSS as one of the reasons for his success?

 

[acoggan]

Re: Re:

Nothing I have written about Coyle other than Coggan lauding his Amrstrong study

Telling lies does not become you: I have never "lauded" the study, simply pointed out how it came to be, why it was published, and why certain criticisms of it are totally off-base, e.g., Gore, Ashenden, et al. stupidly claiming that Monark never made an electronically-controlled cycle ergometer when in fact they did (and I believe still do).

 

[gillan1969]

the various tree experts are all well received due to their expertise in the tree area...however someone's messing with the forest

 

[gillan1969]

Re:

I'm trying to recall...was there any physiological data in the paper on Pinot beyond his VO2max? Also, was the latter measured more than once?

No, and apparently no. And on the surface, the main difference between the two riders seems to be Froome’s adjusted V02max as 88, vs. 85 for Pinot. Pinot’s power at 30 min. was 6.1, if we assume the same threshold and efficiency, Froome’s would be 6.3, close to what Swart is claiming, though the exact time period is not specified, unlike with Pinot. And again, Froome’s power may be higher if FTP/peak power was underestimated in Swart’s study, and if the FTP is in fact for 40-60 minutes.

Why are you even writing this? Nothing I have written about Coyle other than Coggan lauding his Amrstrong study has anything to do with Coggan.

I am having a dig at Coyle.

I did not write nor even suggest Coggan co-authored the study. What are you on about?

Sorry, it’s hard to keep up. In the context of this thread, it would seem the only reason one would bring up Coyle is as an attack on Coggan.

Anyway, whatever sins the latter may have committed in the past—and I admit I didn’t follow the Wiggins story very closely—I don’t see how he can be blamed for the 2007 FAX.

wood for trees merckx....I'm not that interested on the actual numbers between Pinot and Froome, it's that in an overall sense Pinot has released far more data (for scientists, psudo scientists and the cat in the hat to look at), which is what Swart was talking about. He was wrong and made that statemen which cast Froome in a favourable light...

That is cheerleading

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Re:

Sorry, it’s hard to keep up. In the context of this thread, it would seem the only reason one would bring up Coyle is as an attack on Coggan.

Not at all. He has nothing to do with it.

Coyle was a scientist who cobbled together a BS study and subsequently made a name for himself and then was paid handsomely as an expert witness.

Froome's test results from 2007 -- particularly the weight -- look as reliable as the weight data from Coyle's study, hence the suggested extrapolation of events.

I believe these two riders are equally as dirty.

The similarities between USPostal and UKPostal are only enhanced by this most recent "study".

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Re: Re:

Nothing I have written about Coyle other than Coggan lauding his Amrstrong study

Telling lies does not become you: I have never "lauded" the study, simply pointed out how it came to be, why it was published, and why certain criticisms of it are totally off-base, e.g., Gore, Ashenden, et al. stupidly claiming that Monark never made an electronically-controlled cycle ergometer when in fact they did (and I believe still do).

Rather than continue this drivel, I'll just link people to the thread where they can read your words directly: viewtopic.php?f=20&t=2859

It's worth the read. Same VO2max numbers, same alleged weightloss reasons for improved performance, same cheerleading by a "scientist" -- read the conclusion it's a love story Brokeback Mountain would be proud of.

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

Nothing I have written about Coyle other than Coggan lauding his Amrstrong study

Telling lies does not become you: I have never "lauded" the study, simply pointed out how it came to be, why it was published, and why certain criticisms of it are totally off-base, e.g., Gore, Ashenden, et al. stupidly claiming that Monark never made an electronically-controlled cycle ergometer when in fact they did (and I believe still do).

you may not have lauded it.
but you dug deep to defend it and counter the justified suspicions.

 

[gillan1969]

re: wood and trees

its worth remembering that Coe has recently called Ashenden a "so-called expert"...much like Brailsford called various people "psuedo-scientists"....Swart is now suggesting Ashenden get some of Froome's blood values i.e. he's a proper scientist

whilst scientists know each other (and their integrity - the mutual back-slapping is evident here)...the 'politicians' and marketeers are using them for their own ends...they may consider that to be an exogenous factor...however its now so ingrained in 'the model' that its endogenous (forgive my crude scientific terminology)

you need to take account of it....

 

[acoggan]

Re: Re:

Nothing I have written about Coyle other than Coggan lauding his Amrstrong study

Telling lies does not become you: I have never "lauded" the study, simply pointed out how it came to be, why it was published, and why certain criticisms of it are totally off-base, e.g., Gore, Ashenden, et al. stupidly claiming that Monark never made an electronically-controlled cycle ergometer when in fact they did (and I believe still do).

you may not have lauded it.
but you dug deep to defend it and counter the justified suspicions.

What you call a defense was simply informed commentary. Would you prefer that I let people be misled by patently false statements (e.g., that the data, as presented, didn't demonstrate an improvement in Armstrong's efficiency)?

 

[thehog]

Pretty snazzy photocopier that transforms selected chunks of text into bold. It just IS dodgy, no doubt about it.

Perhaps but two copies with exactly the same info, with one bolded text and a highlight added hardly screams conspiracy to me. It just says different formatting of the same document.

Left copy is the Marked Up version from Esquire, the right side s the unmarked copy from other magazines like CyclingWeekly.


1. Left copy green circles, phone numbers are smudged to conceal contact information indicating the document has been treated for publication. Right side green circle is clean to indicate it's the original.

2. Red square on left copy has a "punch hole" binder press mark covering Dr. Farron's first initial, magically on the right red square Dr. Farron's first initial is missing with a blank space area. There is a new punch hole to the right indicating this is another document or a copy of the first? Light blue arrow indicates space marker between title and last name. Oddly the heading 'Medcines' remains intact even with the gap between 'Dr' and last name, on the left copy it broken away by the binder hole.

3. Black square around height and weight on left side copy has been highlighted in red to show key data. The 'g' from 'kg' appears to bleed over the top of the updated highlight. Point 1 shows contact information was smudged, the expectation is an updated copy. It could be a pen marker and not photoshop? The ',' between 75 and '6' bleeds under the red highlight.

4. Light green square on right shows punch binder hole concealing title of 'Chef de Service' which is in italic. Green square on right 'Chef' strangely appears in Italic under the heading of 'Chef de service' rather than standard formatting like remainder of the name on both sheets, there is also a extended space between 'Chef' and 'P.-F' on the right side document.

5. Red arrow indicates second binder hole on right document. It doesn't align with the the binder hole on the left document even when the top binder hole on the two docs do. Perhaps a difference in folder sizes? Red line shows the misalignment between the two binder holes on each document.

6. Yellow squares indicate bolding on the 'watts' etc. on left document but the bold disappears on the right sided original document.

7. Large scuff mark on left document doesn't appear on right document. Maybe a reason for this marking being on one and not the other? Light blue arrow indicates.

--

I don't know what to make of the documents or why they released two separate versions but there are some odd inconsistencies between the two.

The Esquire version to the left would have been in the publishers hands much eariler, perhaps that's why? Then they located the 'cleaner' copy? But the cleaner copy has out takes from the first and text has been entered to cover the binder holes.

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

Saw this one today. This is the apparent original according to Moore.

It was multiple pages as displayed at the top yet scuff marks travel over a 3D hole binder hole. That being the case, Esquire or whom ever must have received the document in this state? Which means there can't be pages underneath that are readable.

What a bizarre document...

 

[acoggan]

Re: Re:

Coyle was a scientist who cobbled together a BS study and subsequently made a name for himself and then was paid handsomely as an expert witness.

Coyle was a name long before he published the Armstrong study (in fact, that probably contributed to it getting published in the first place).

I have no idea what he was paid to serve as an expert witness in the SCA trial, but the typical rate for such things is $150-250 per hour. My guess would therefore be that what he was paid amounted to ~1% of his yearly income.

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

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

Worth posting the content.

Jeroen Swart
@JeroenSwart

For all of the crowd wildly speculating on the @Cyclingnewsfeed clinic: I wasn't paid to do any of the tests and I don't work for GSK.

Thought I'd just combine these two for reference.

Jeroen Swart
‏
@SamueleMarcora @Scienceofsport @Cyclingnewsfeed @GSK_HPL there would always be a hint of bias if I got paid. Never even considered it.

That's not the scenario I had originally imagined. Interesting discussion, and it's nice to have verification from the source.

If Swart is not getting paid, why is he blowing his own trumpet so hard on twitter, oh yeah to attract business

 

[djpbaltimore]

Re:

Do some research on Ed Coyle, djpbaltimore, I think you missed my meaning.

Thanks for the heads up, I think I get the gist of your reply from the following responses. I was not aware of this situation prior to your post. My opinion is less cynical in regards to Dr. Swart, but you are free to believe otherwise. Sometimes scientists are most interested in doing science on topics that intrigue them. Swart's twitter picture is him in a bike helmet, I can imagine knowing the physiological potential of a TDF winner is worth studying. I think it is fair to criticize him for some of his Twitter replies that come across as 'cheerleading'. Nor do I think his tweets are 100% accurate. But I think that tends to happen when people get their back up by countless badgering by people suggesting that your integrity is compromised. I would've advised him not to engage with any anonymous person on twitter.

For scientists, these studies are really their side projects, and don't have too much impact on their career trajectory or research plans. Maybe these studies should not occur and journals should reject them because of lack of impact, etc. That is a discussion worthy of having. I think too much of the focus of the thread has been attacking the messenger using false assumptions and underhanded comments.

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

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

Worth posting the content.

Jeroen Swart
@JeroenSwart

For all of the crowd wildly speculating on the @Cyclingnewsfeed clinic: I wasn't paid to do any of the tests and I don't work for GSK.

Thought I'd just combine these two for reference.

Jeroen Swart
‏
@SamueleMarcora @Scienceofsport @Cyclingnewsfeed @GSK_HPL there would always be a hint of bias if I got paid. Never even considered it.

That's not the scenario I had originally imagined. Interesting discussion, and it's nice to have verification from the source.

If Swart is not getting paid, why is he blowing his own trumpet so hard on twitter, oh yeah to attract business

The very reason a law firm takes on Pro bono work is to gain notoriety for future work.

Prior to this Swart was in a lab somewhere in Cape Town, now Esquire magazine