The Froome Files, test data only thread

[sniper]

Re:

Poor Vayer, he's trying so hard but obviously he's, well, on his limit

https://twitter.com/JeroenSwart/status/675704244624838656?lang=fi

it objectively seems burnley and swart are on their limits. for days on end.
not able to discuss anything with anybody other than themselves.
an unsympathetic and intellectually rather limited tag team.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Hi JV, what tests of Froome did you conduct/see? When?

just was given some from his barloworld time. rather crude, old fashioned vo2 tests, but still. i never conducted any myself. i've heard of some big numbers when he was at the cycling center in agile, but i never saw those.

Lets ask Jona for those numbers

 

[sniper]

Hi JV, what tests of Froome did you conduct/see? When?

just was given some from his barloworld time. rather crude, old fashioned vo2 tests, but still. i never conducted any myself. i've heard of some big numbers when he was at the cycling center in agile, but i never saw those.

Lets ask Jona for those numbers

good recollection.
and the link leads back to an interesting discussion with jv about froome.
some good posts from pcmg, brodeal, there.
this one, a.o., is interesting:
viewtopic.php?p=1256516#p1256516
Rohan Dennis is an interesting case to compare Froome with.
Age, weight and height very comparable to Froome 2007/8.
Dennis' case suggests being a bit chubby is not necessarily a hindrance to performing in stage races if you have the raw talent.

 

[djpbaltimore]

Interesting tidbits about Dr. Swart's brief interaction with Ullrich in 2006.

Objectively, Vayer is guilty of two bits of bad science. First, he didn't double-check his numbers and started an argument using data that was incorrect. This type of thing will happen to every scientist at some point and, while embarrassing for Vayer, it is generally no big deal. The incident also illustrates my point earlier in this thread that, Dr. Swart, like most scientists, will take data from a colleague at face value. Credit to Dr. Burnley for running the numbers and picking up the error. Second, when this error was brought to light, Vayer really doesn't own up, apologize, and move on. His Merry Christmas tweet in French doesn't suffice IMO. From my viewpoint, there is too much 'Gotcha' tone and one-sidedness coming from Vayer in his twitter exchanges. Dr. Swart has handled him adroitly IMO.

Mark Burnley ‏@DrMarkBurnley 3h3 hours ago
@festinaboy @JeroenSwart this test result has nothing to do with PEDs. No drug increases VO2 like this, and it wouldn't be a PED if it did.

Mark Burnley ‏@DrMarkBurnley 3h3 hours ago
@festinaboy I never said it was fake, I'm saying that there must be an error in the data.

Mark Burnley ‏@DrMarkBurnley 3h3 hours ago
@JeroenSwart @festinaboy ...but I'm not going to bang on about it. For more than a week. After all, it's not a fax.

FTW

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

I sure hope that Vayer himself doesn't play the victim card in terms of English being a second language (at best) for him. Because for someone who lacks a proper grasp of the language, he's awfully mouthy, and I've always felt that way about him.

He'd be better served by trying to be a bit less clever, especially when dealing with the limit of 140 chars.

Poor Vayer, he's trying so hard but obviously he's, well, on his limit

https://twitter.com/JeroenSwart/status/675704244624838656?lang=fi

Objectively, Vayer is guilty of two bits of bad science.

Vayer makes basic maths mistakes a bit too often for someone supposedly that smart, and that's not a language problem. He's either just sloppy or is attempting to make data fit a pre-conceived narrative. It's probably both.

As to who is in it for the publicity, Vayer is way out in front on that measure. Let's face it, real science doesn't always make for exciting attention grabbing headlines because scientists know the limits of what one can infer from data. Vayer doesn't operate with such limits.

Again, none of this is to suggest whether or not Froome or anyone else dopes. The test data just doesn't tell us that.

 

[thehog]

So has anyone been able to ask these two baffling questions, yet?

How is it possible that Froome hits 420w/ftp at under 140bpm, while having an additional 30-40 bpm left in the tank? Does this mean that this is like "over-rev" on a two stroke moto? 30-40 bpm is a lot of over-rev...

And how is it possible that Sky- the super meticulous, training gods of cycling- have not managed to get one single, solitary watt more from Froome, over 5 years of development?

Seems like lots of arguing about faxes and stuff, while everyone overlooks the obvious.

Was his max heart rate measured or reported

In the 2015 tests the machine apparently had a calibration error and did not record the HR.

 

[Benotti69]

Hi JV, what tests of Froome did you conduct/see? When?

just was given some from his barloworld time. rather crude, old fashioned vo2 tests, but still. i never conducted any myself. i've heard of some big numbers when he was at the cycling center in agile, but i never saw those.

Lets ask Jona for those numbers

What was interesting about that reply from JV was he never said Froome had a great Vo2. Hinault must have done the old fashioned tests that everyone was raving Froome matched but JV still kept the numbers to himself.

Vaughters playing omerta.

 

[thehog]

In 2012/13 Wiggins said Froome 5kg lighter than him. Wiggins was 69kg in 2012, making Froome 64kg, which sounds about right.

Walsh's book says Froome was 68kg at the 2011 Vuelta.

 

[Poursuivant]

I sure hope that Vayer himself doesn't play the victim card in terms of English being a second language (at best) for him. Because for someone who lacks a proper grasp of the language, he's awfully mouthy, and I've always felt that way about him.

He'd be better served by trying to be a bit less clever, especially when dealing with the limit of 140 chars.

Poor Vayer, he's trying so hard but obviously he's, well, on his limit

https://twitter.com/JeroenSwart/status/675704244624838656?lang=fi

Objectively, Vayer is guilty of two bits of bad science.

Vayer makes basic maths mistakes a bit too often for someone supposedly that smart, and that's not a language problem. He's either just sloppy or is attempting to make data fit a pre-conceived narrative. It's probably both.

As to who is in it for the publicity, Vayer is way out in front on that measure. Let's face it, real science doesn't always make for exciting attention grabbing headlines because scientists know the limits of what one can infer from data. Vayer doesn't operate with such limits.

Again, none of this is to suggest whether or not Froome or anyone else dopes. The test data just doesn't tell us that.

Vayer is a joke, he is an obsessive who has openly stated that "nothing" would make him believe Froome is clean. He can throw as much muck as he wants because it's easy when you have the ridiculous attitude that he has. He is pathetic and brings nothing to the discussion.

 

[bewildered]

This really is a PR masterstroke from Froome, he has the Clinic exactly where he wants it. Analysing and debating inconclusive, circular test data when we all should be asking how he transformed overnight and how a guy that skinny can dominate time trials. He really must be happy that everyone has fallen for it hook, line and sinker. Mission accomplished.

And what's that? There's more test data to analyse next year too. Are you surprised?

 

[thehog]

I sure hope that Vayer himself doesn't play the victim card in terms of English being a second language (at best) for him. Because for someone who lacks a proper grasp of the language, he's awfully mouthy, and I've always felt that way about him.

He'd be better served by trying to be a bit less clever, especially when dealing with the limit of 140 chars.

Poor Vayer, he's trying so hard but obviously he's, well, on his limit

https://twitter.com/JeroenSwart/status/675704244624838656?lang=fi

Objectively, Vayer is guilty of two bits of bad science.

Vayer makes basic maths mistakes a bit too often for someone supposedly that smart, and that's not a language problem. He's either just sloppy or is attempting to make data fit a pre-conceived narrative. It's probably both.

As to who is in it for the publicity, Vayer is way out in front on that measure. Let's face it, real science doesn't always make for exciting attention grabbing headlines because scientists know the limits of what one can infer from data. Vayer doesn't operate with such limits.

Again, none of this is to suggest whether or not Froome or anyone else dopes. The test data just doesn't tell us that.

Vayer is a joke, he is an obsessive who has openly stated that "nothing" would make him believe Froome is clean. He can throw as much muck as he wants because it's easy when you have the ridiculous attitude that he has. He is pathetic and brings nothing to the discussion.

What he brings is his years of experience in cycling and that of Festina, which is pivotal. English is not his first language so it's easy to play on it.

Still, I'm not sure the testing was conducted just to beat up on Vayer. But it seems that is what is occurring now with Swart leading the charge.

 

[Merckx index]

I wasn't aware that the 2007 testing included any estimate of sustainable power. How was that obtained, and what does it show?

There is no mention of FTP in the pdf. But it's in the FAX, and it's also mentioned in the Esquire article:

What is striking is how similar the two reports, eight years apart, are. Apart from one thing. Froome was 75.6kg: more than 8kg heavier than his current race weight. His body fat was 16.9 per cent. “Frankly, for an elite cyclist that’s chubby,” says Swart. “But he produced better figures: peak power of 540 [15 watts higher than in August 2015], threshold of 420 — we made it 419, so it’s one watt less.” His V02 max in 2007 was 80.2.

If you already know the answer to the question you're asking, I don't see how the actual data helps you any.

Answers are not black-and-white, obviously. Some are more informative than others. Lab tests can provide more information than estimating from road performances, particularly when the latter are TT subject to variations, often unknown, in both weather and profile.

Point being that all the power data in the world won't answer the question of whether efficiency (or muscular metabolic fitness) improved.

But it may illuminate the degree to which those factors could contribute to the improvement. To take an extreme example, efficiency improvement could not explain a doubling in power. Very unlikely it could explain a 20% improvement.

 

[The Hitch]

I sure hope that Vayer himself doesn't play the victim card in terms of English being a second language (at best) for him. Because for someone who lacks a proper grasp of the language, he's awfully mouthy, and I've always felt that way about him.

He'd be better served by trying to be a bit less clever, especially when dealing with the limit of 140 chars.

Poor Vayer, he's trying so hard but obviously he's, well, on his limit

https://twitter.com/JeroenSwart/status/675704244624838656?lang=fi

Objectively, Vayer is guilty of two bits of bad science.

Vayer makes basic maths mistakes a bit too often for someone supposedly that smart, and that's not a language problem. He's either just sloppy or is attempting to make data fit a pre-conceived narrative. It's probably both.

As to who is in it for the publicity, Vayer is way out in front on that measure. Let's face it, real science doesn't always make for exciting attention grabbing headlines because scientists know the limits of what one can infer from data. Vayer doesn't operate with such limits.

Again, none of this is to suggest whether or not Froome or anyone else dopes. The test data just doesn't tell us that.

Vayer is a joke, he is an obsessive who has openly stated that "nothing" would make him believe Froome is clean. He can throw as much muck as he wants because it's easy when you have the ridiculous attitude that he has. He is pathetic and brings nothing to the discussion.

I don't see what's wrong with that.
This isn't some hypothetical law school question where we don't know the circumstances so can't make a judgement.

Its a real life situation.

A kid who has proven he is perfectly willing to lie and cheat his way into a cycling career, who struggles to even get into the top 30 of most races, even while riding an almost exclusively 2nd rate racing schedule, joins a cycling team full of doping enablers who have dedicated their life to doping and cheating, and suddenly turns into the dominant rider of his generation.

His transformation coincidentally takes the exact form (sudden mysterious weight loss combined with power output gain) that anti doping voices in the peloton are saying that doping transformations will now look like.

As a response to questions about doping, he lies repeatedly about the most basic things, fabricates clearly false and easy to disprove stories about the nature of his transformation, and then changes them when he realizes how weak they are, breaks promises, and ultimately uses the press to adhominem doubters without addressing their arguments.

He waits several years before even attempting to prove he is clean, and when he finally does, the data is vague, according to some scientists fabricated and media connections are used to drown out any questions over the weak and incomplete data.

So what exactly is Vayer supposed to be waiting for before he can take the conclusion that froome doped?

 

[Jacques de Molay]

The topic of Froome's dual bike crash has nothing to do with data, which is precisely why I introduced that discussion in to the main Froome thread a few days ago. It should stay there.

 

[Jacques de Molay]

I don't get what part of Swart's personality you find appealing.

I have no opinion, whatsoever, regarding Swart's personality. I've never met him, and know very little about his background. I will give a fair amount of weight to Ross Tucker's endorsement of Swart's credibility though. Is there some reason we shouldn't?

The only thing I have defended is that some are criticizing Swart's testing methods and/or results, and yet the scientific publication of all the data has yet to be released. March, 2016 is the target date for that. Until then, there's seem little point in over analyzing the deliberately limited version that's been released thus far.

Vayer...What has he done to anybody? Nothing much really... Except he's placed suspicion over Team Sky. Good luck claiming that isn't justified.

Where have I suggested any such thing? Btw, Vayer hasn't placed suspicion over Sky, they've done that all by themselves.

So why did Brailsford try to get in touch with the modest doubter?

I dunno. Why don't you ask Sir Dave? Damage control, I suppose. But I'm not sure why you're even asking me this. I was referring to Froome directly. Vayer suggests that Froome should call him up, even though "nothing will convince him" that Froome is clean. So why in the world would Froome ever make that call? It's stupid and pointless posturing on Vayer's part.

This really is a PR masterstroke from Froome, he has the Clinic exactly where he wants it. Analysing and debating inconclusive, circular test data when we all should be asking how he transformed overnight and how a guy that skinny can dominate time trials. He really must be happy that everyone has fallen for it hook, line and sinker. Mission accomplished.

What mission did he accomplish?

Those are the exact questions that The Clinic have been asking and continue to ask.
Hook, line and sinker? In this forum? Have you not been reading any of the Sky or Froome threads?

 

[Jacques de Molay]

So what exactly is Vayer supposed to be waiting for before he can take the conclusion that froome doped?

Nothing. But most of all, he should't be waiting for a call from Chris.

You raise many good points though, and more than a few people would agree with you on all of them. Where Vayer loses the plot however, is when he makes public statements such as this:

Chris Froome will not win a third Tour de France if his equipment is checked at the right time and in the right place.

So which is it, Antoine? PEDs, or motors? To make such definitive claims only undermines his own credibility. A statement of such certainty, from someone in his position, demands a bit more.

"Extraordinary accusations," and all that.

 

[DirtyWorks]

Dr. Veloclinic did a great job debunking the weight loss theory. It's not weight loss.

http://veloclinic.tumblr.com/post/134870267983/swart-gsk-froome-study-quick-thoughts

The Vayer quote may have gotten lost in translation.

 

[Random Direction]

Ouch (10 chars)

 

[Lyon]

Re:

This really is a PR masterstroke from Froome, he has the Clinic exactly where he wants it. Analysing and debating inconclusive, circular test data when we all should be asking how he transformed overnight and how a guy that skinny can dominate time trials. He really must be happy that everyone has fallen for it hook, line and sinker. Mission accomplished.

And what's that? There's more test data to analyse next year too. Are you surprised?

Exactly. Scientists care about methodology, non-scientists care about conclusions. Swart delivered on both accounts. Always the useful idiot.

Has anyone from the Froome-clan said anything in public after the article in Esquire or are they letting Swart speak on their behalf?

 

[The Hitch]

So what exactly is Vayer supposed to be waiting for before he can take the conclusion that froome doped?

Nothing. But most of all, he should't be waiting for a call from Chris.

You raise many good points though, and more than a few people would agree with you on all of them. Where Vayer loses the plot however, is when he makes public statements such as this:

Chris Froome will not win a third Tour de France if his equipment is checked at the right time and in the right place.

So which is it, Antoine? PEDs, or motors? To make such definitive claims only undermines his own credibility. A statement of such certainty, from someone in his position, demands a bit more.

"Extraordinary accusations," and all that.

Ok. I'm not defending vayer as a whole though, just that one line of logic.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Vayer's nonsense make him one of Froome's best PR assets.

 

[sniper]

Re:

Vayer's nonsense make him one of Froome's best PR assets.

it's a good point.
i dont doubt it applies, albeit predominantly to dumb folks.
people like Vayer who dont fit the mould, they strengthen group-think among those who do fit the mould.
Vayer is angry, bitter and french.
yes, froome believers will find comfort and confirmation in vayer's rants.

 

[Benotti69]

The Froome 2 week transformation prior to '11 Vuelta has not been explained by the data. That has long been decided, in fact many times it has been agreed. That people keep discussing the data is neither here nor there. The 'independent' tests were done not to appease the clinic or those who doubt, but to keep those wavering in their belief onside that Froome is some kind of physiological miracle. They have given those fans the perfect catch phrase 'weight loss'... and lots as witnessed here in this thread fell for it.

That Sky have not been able to explain away the transformation of a guy that they themselves wanted to rid to GT superstar should be enough for anyone with a lick of logic to point to doping, add on all the lies, misinformation, talk of marginal gains, beating Armstrong's madone record and we have the classic case of rider ups PED program to stay in the sport.

 

[sniper]

I don't get what part of Swart's personality you find appealing.

I have no opinion, whatsoever, regarding Swart's personality. I've never met him, and know very little about his background. I will give a fair amount of weight to Ross Tucker's endorsement of Swart's credibility though. Is there some reason we shouldn't?

The only thing I have defended is that some are criticizing Swart's testing methods and/or results, and yet the scientific publication of all the data has yet to be released. March, 2016 is the target date for that. Until then, there's seem little point in over analyzing the deliberately limited version that's been released thus far.

swart's 2015 testing has hardly been criticized.
it's been labeled useless to the point of being pointless, at least in the context of establishing if froome dopes.
that's the only criticism it has received, and that's justified.
subsequently people on twitter have attempted to enter with him in a discussion about doping, and about the validity of the 2007 tests, and about the value of the 2015 tests in the context of Froome doping.
In that discussion, Swart has shown his colors, gone full Sky-Froome bot, not able to address any arguments, blocking and/or insulting froome-doubters, being highly dismissive of any inquiries/doubts, and team-tagging with Sky-fans like Moore and/or rather dumb folks like Mark Burnley.

Tucker's opinion is irrelevant in this context. Tucker is always going to stay balanced, would be foolish to take sides, and/or make any personal comments, or go on a verbal battle with Jeroen. It'd be pointless.
They are colleagues, will be meeting in podcasts soon, but also later on in conferences, etc.
So Tucker has to show him due respect, regardless of what he really thinks of him.

 

[harryh]

I sure hope that Vayer himself doesn't play the victim card in terms of English being a second language (at best) for him. Because for someone who lacks a proper grasp of the language, he's awfully mouthy, and I've always felt that way about him.

He'd be better served by trying to be a bit less clever, especially when dealing with the limit of 140 chars.

Poor Vayer, he's trying so hard but obviously he's, well, on his limit

https://twitter.com/JeroenSwart/status/675704244624838656?lang=fi

Objectively, Vayer is guilty of two bits of bad science.

Vayer makes basic maths mistakes a bit too often for someone supposedly that smart, and that's not a language problem. He's either just sloppy or is attempting to make data fit a pre-conceived narrative. It's probably both.

As to who is in it for the publicity, Vayer is way out in front on that measure. Let's face it, real science doesn't always make for exciting attention grabbing headlines because scientists know the limits of what one can infer from data. Vayer doesn't operate with such limits.

Again, none of this is to suggest whether or not Froome or anyone else dopes. The test data just doesn't tell us that.

He has just created his own version of exercise physiology, I mean, quoting Vayer himself: "Science is a tool for cheaters"