The Froome Files, test data only thread

[thehog]

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

The point Slongo is making that test data doesn't provide indication that someone is clean or not. You can dope prior to testing just as much as you can prior to racing. That's why Tucker is saying the longitude biological data between the tests is very important.

Its not WHY a rider can record the results they do in a test its the HOW.

 

[blackcat]

why do my fellow travellers on The Clinic need the testing and Brailsford, it just seems the MSM and the bought and paid for Murdoch media, will always ensure Froome is not daubed with a doping brush, so they are always protected, and they can spin any result any which-way they like to "prove" they are clean when they are anything but. It is really down-the-freekin-rabbit-hole stuff.

I do wonder tho, about JTL. Now, in the rank and hierarchy of acronyms, JTL comes a distant second to LRP. But I do have an empathy for JTL being a scapegoat for the other doping cyclists.

JTL is the anglos and brits own Russian. He is the weakest member of the tribe, he is an inverted social darwinistic[sic] non muslim martyr. poor JTL. p'raps his parents could have given him a better more mellifluous name like LRP. then he could dope like LRP

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

So, nothing released yet? Is Froomey waiting for Sinterklaas?

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re:

So, nothing released yet? Is Froomey waiting for Sinterklaas?

It's not due until Friday morning. Though loads of people have apparently been on the Esquire site bashing the hell out of F5 all day long...

 

[Poursuivant]

I don't understand why it has took until December to release it?

 

[pastronef]

nice one from Cillian Kelly

https://www.twitter.com/irishpeloton/status/672360367025180672

 

[LaFlorecita]

Re:

I don't understand why it has took until December to release it?

It takes a long while of massaging data before you get what you want.

I am just kidding.

 

[thehog]

Re:

I don't understand why it has took until December to release it?

I think it was reasonable for it to take this long. Any peer reviewed report would have the core data available after the testing. The time was to write it into a report, have it reviewed and then build an magazine article around the testing which had its own release cycle. I don't find anything troubling with the time from the test until it is published in a magazine. Most studies take months to be released after the lab phase has completed. PhD's would know the drill, otherwise it would take 3 weeks to get your doctorate!

 

[TailWindHome]

Some interesting stuff in the Tucker article quoted above

The book chapters analogy is good.
Clearly there's a lot of respect from Ross Tucker towards Swart which should reassure the sceptics
Suggestions that Kimmage/Vayer should have been involved are nonsense and I suspect really a proxy for Tucker saying he wasn't asked.

It's a shame that all you're getting tomorrow is a magazine article and the actual publication of the 'paper' is sometime in the vague future, not yet determined.

 

[TailWindHome]

Paul Kimmage ‏@PaulKimmage · 10 hrs10 hours ago
Okay so it's taken a while but if @chrisfroome is going to open his door to science surely the least we can do is wait for the report?

 

[acoggan]

Re: Re:

It's a result found in studies.

Technically, study, singular, at least if you consider just cycling:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12471319

Noakes and Tucker have previously argued that the inverse relationship observed in the above-referenced study essentially reflects a selection phenomenon:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15179181

 

[TailWindHome]

Re: Re:

So, nothing released yet? Is Froomey waiting for Sinterklaas?

It's not due until Friday morning. Though loads of people have apparently been on the Esquire site bashing the hell out of F5 all day long...

is F5 a euphemism?

 

[Rollthedice]

Re:

I don't understand why it has took until December to release it?

They have to reconstruct minute by minute what exactly happened between Tour of Poland and Vuelta in 2013.

 

[pastronef]

Re: Re:

I don't understand why it has took until December to release it?

They have to reconstruct minute by minute what exactly happened between Tour of Poland and Vuelta in 2013.

2011

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Re: Re:

So, nothing released yet? Is Froomey waiting for Sinterklaas?

It's not due until Friday morning. Though loads of people have apparently been on the Esquire site bashing the hell out of F5 all day long...

So, you are telling me they actually have a website? Jeez, never to old to learn.

 

[Beech Mtn]

Re: Re:

So, nothing released yet? Is Froomey waiting for Sinterklaas?

It's not due until Friday morning. Though loads of people have apparently been on the Esquire site bashing the hell out of F5 all day long...

is F5 a euphemism?

F5 = refresh.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Re: Re:

So, nothing released yet? Is Froomey waiting for Sinterklaas?

It's not due until Friday morning. Though loads of people have apparently been on the Esquire site bashing the hell out of F5 all day long...

is F5 a euphemism?

F5 = refresh.

ephfiveism.

 

[TailWindHome]

http://chrisfroome.esquire.co.uk/

 

[thehog]

Re:

http://chrisfroome.esquire.co.uk/

And so it begins... They are not stating the length of the test. I'm not seeing 60 minutes so not an FTP at one hour but 20 minutes?

First, since Froome has fasted overnight, he has some scans to determine his body composition: how much is muscle and how much is fat. The results are surprising. He looks emaciated (though he has put on almost 3kg in the three weeks since the Tour ended, going from 67 to 69.9kg) but while 61.5kg of his body is lean mass, 6.7kg is pure fat: 9.8 per cent. Since athletes have been known to have as little as four or five per cent body fat, it seems high.

If Froome always had the physiology of a Tour winner, the clues should be in that report. Michelle says she has been trying to track down the scientist who carried out the 2007 tests.

When the numbers are crunched Froome’s V02 is 84.6. At his Tour de France weight, it would correlate to 88.2. A few athletes have been measured in the 90s (the highest recorded by a cyclist is believed to be by the three-time Tour winner Greg LeMond, with 92.5) but, says Bell, “Froome’s values are close to what we believe are the upper limits for VO2 peak in humans.”

In his test in the lab, Froome’s peak power is 525 watts and his sustained power, which he should be able to maintain for 20–40 minutes, is 419 watts. The figure corresponds to 5.98 watts-per-kilogram; at his Tour weight of 67kg, it would be 6.25w/kg. Using Vayer’s model, that puts him firmly in the suspicious category. Swart disagrees: “I’ve seen a value of 5.8w/kg being spoken of as the upper limit of human performance for a 40-minute effort. But 6.2w/kg is definitely doable for Chris for 20 minutes if not longer.

“Chris’s peak power is 525 watts, which corresponds to 7.51w/kg: a massive figure,” Swart continues. “But the interesting thing is that the [sustained] figure of 6w/kg — which is basically what he produced in the lab — is 79.8 per cent of his peak power. That’s a completely reasonable percentage.”

“Chris’s peak power is 525 watts, which corresponds to 7.51w/kg: a massive figure,” Swart continues. “But the interesting thing is that the [sustained] figure of 6w/kg — which is basically what he produced in the lab — is 79.8 per cent of his peak power. That’s a completely reasonable percentage.”

 

[Benotti69]

Re:

http://chrisfroome.esquire.co.uk/

Moore delivered as expected.

 

[thehog]

2007 data:

The latter, says Swart. 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.

“The engine was there all along,” says Swart. “He just lost the fat.”

 

[thehog]

Blood data:

On 13 July, Froome’s haemoglobin was 15.3 grams per litre (g/l) and 0.72 per cent of his red blood cells were immature (the normal adult range is 0.5–2.5 per cent). EPO stimulates the bone marrow, flooding the blood with immature cells, whereas a blood transfusion results in an excess of red blood cells, which suppresses the bone marrow and results in fewer immature red cells. His OFF-score, which approximates to the balance between the amount of red cells in his circulation and the rate of their formation, was 102.1. On 20 August, Froome’s haemoglobin was 15.3 and he had 0.96 per cent immature red blood cells. His OFF-score was 94.21.

The Athlete Biological Passport wasn’t introduced until 2009, so his 2007 sample can’t be directly compared to his ABP values from 2015. This is because strict criteria for the sample collection, storage and subsequent processing are required for ABP bloods, resulting in far more accurate and reliable values than existed previously. This situation didn’t apply in 2007 and, furthermore, there’s no reticulocyte measurement or OFF-score available for this sample. However, bearing those limitations in mind, Froome’s haemoglobin was 14.5 on this occasion.

 

[Benotti69]

2007 data:

The latter, says Swart. 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.

“The engine was there all along,” says Swart. “He just lost the fat.”

This was predicted. He had the engine but could not ride a bike in sand shoes......yada yada

 

[thehog]

Not sure on this assessment:

This is the score that Froome knows will make the headlines. But what does it actually mean? Bell explains: “For the general population, VO2 max is somewhere around 35 to 40. For the general gym-goer, it can be in the high 40s. An active team sports player, 50s. Once you hit high 50s to 60s, that’s when you’re getting to the more highly trained individual. You’d expect Tour de France cyclists to be in the high 70s and above.”

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Fat makes sweet FA difference in a TT if you have that power on tap.