The Froome Files, test data only thread

[zigmeister]

I'm assuming, have to wait until the official peer review journal article is published, that any blood drawn during this testing, will also be sent to approved WADA testing lab and evaluated completely right?

 

[sniper]

Re:

I'm assuming, have to wait until the official peer review journal article is published, that any blood drawn during this testing, will also be sent to approved WADA testing lab and evaluated completely right?

But, what more can Froome do to prove he's clean? If he does x, the haters will say 'do y and z'. He's doing everything he can to prove he's clean, and it's still not enough!


for real now, i was thinking about opening a thread "Things Froome could do to prove he's clean". Your simple but brilliant suggestion would be right up there, along with:

2. piss in a cup, send sample to Cologne, have it tested for aicar.

 

[red_flanders]

Re: Re:

But, what more can Froome do to prove he's clean? If he does x, the haters will say 'do y and z'. He's doing everything he can to prove he's clean, and it's still not enough!


for real now, i was thinking about opening a thread "Things Froome could do to prove he's clean". Your simple but brilliant suggestion would be right up there, along with:

2. piss in a cup, send sample to Cologne, have it tested for aicar.

Answer to that question is nothing.

The problem is, that it's the wrong question. The question is "what could Froome have done in the past to prove he was clean?" You know, when SKY were talking about transparency, doing the right thing, and all that other BS while they hired and employed a slew of doping enablers.

What could have been done was to have been transparent from the beginning. But that would have required wanting to be transparent and having nothing to hide.

Was never going to happen. Anyone who believed it was going to happen or has happened did so because they wanted to believe it.

They have been secretive, they have lied, mis-directed, obfuscated, re-written history and in every way have acted the opposite of what they professed. There is nothing Froome or Sky can do now to change those facts.

The endless asking "what more can they do" simply means the questioner don't understand what they've already done. Calling people haters obfuscates the fact that almost no one "hated" them before they started pulling all the BS they pulled and took us all for fools. For those who have come to the conclusion that Froome is doping, it was done because all available evidence pointed that way, not because of some pre-conceived notion of what was going to happen. It is the only logical conclusion one can draw from the events which have occurred.

It is not hating. It is simple observation.

 

[djpbaltimore]

I don't think anybody has been called a 'hater' for wanting more data or for expressing their opinions in this thread. The rhetoric directed at posters has mostly come from the other direction IMO.

 

[Jacques de Molay]

I'm assuming, have to wait until the official peer review journal article is published, that any blood drawn during this testing, will also be sent to approved WADA testing lab and evaluated completely right?

I would have to believe that the only way to submit blood for testing under the WADA standards would be if that blood was drawn by the appropriate people with the proper authorization and who followed the necessary protocol. (Or was your question meant as light-hearted trolling?)

But it does raise another point that I was slightly confused about when first reading Swart's account of that day's events. The blood data that was released by Froome/Cound (somehow, being his "manager," she was involved in the release of this data as well) was explained as this:

THE HAEMATOLOGICAL DATA

Froome also released blood test data from August 20, three days after his test, and one carried out on the first rest day of the Tour de France on July 13.

Both were biological passport tests.

So those blood tests were not done by GSK. But in another interview with Swart, he had this to say:

Well, the first thing is I asked them to release the [blood] values on the day of the testing, because I wanted to ensure that the people didn’t think that he rocked up to the lab with a haematocrit of 53 or something like that. In other words, produced a performance to justify his Tour performance by having somehow blood doped.

What values is he referring to? On first read, I had assumed that he meant that blood test were done "on the day of testing." But that makes little sense to me now because the only blood tests spoken of that took place at GSK were the ones for the lactate test—which would normally never yield enough blood for anything other than the L/T test itself. So what is he referring to? Is it stated elsewhere that GSK did a more comprehensive blood profile of Froome?

The GSK statement says nothing about blood tests other than L/T.

The tests were undertaken by the GSK Human Performance Lab’s Research and Development team, focussing on aerobic physiology in addition to body composition assessment.

So what was Swart referring to? Did he ask Froome to have blood tests done on the day of testing, but that never happened, or am I misinterpreting this whole thing?

That CyclingTips interview does have a few typos and a grammatical errors that make for slightly clumsy reading in parts, so it could be an editing issue to blame for any confusion (a "word calibration error" if you will). But now I'm at a loss. Can anyone else shed some light on this for me?

 

[acoggan]

Re: Re:

The question is "what could Froome have done in the past to prove he was clean?"

There's nothing he or any other athlete could do to prove they were clean, as you can't prove a negative (and physiological testing is a waste of time in this context, as Team Sky well knows).

 

[Jacques de Molay]

The podcast with Ross Tucker and Jeroen Swart has just been posted.
http://thecyclingpodcast.com/podcast/41-the-scientists-speak

December 15 | The new Telegraph Cycling Podcast features part one of a two-part interview with sports scientists Jeroen Swart and Ross Tucker. Part two will be released later this week.

The South Africans, both based in Cape Town, have been among the most prominent voices in the discussion over power data and Chris Froome’s recent physiological tests. Swart was one of the scientists who tested Froome in the GSK laboratory in west London while Tucker has publicly questioned Froome’s performances and repeatedly called for greater transparency.

They met in Cape Town this week for a conversation moderated by Lionel Birnie and recorded exclusively for The Telegraph Cycling Podcast.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Re: Re:

The question is "what could Froome have done in the past to prove he was clean?"

There's nothing he or any other athlete could do to prove they were clean, as you can't prove a negative (and physiological testing is a waste of time in this context, as Team Sky well knows).

So you're still saying the passport is a waste of time?

Uh huh.

 

[Merckx index]

Can anyone else shed some light on this for me?

I read it as releasing the previously collected blood data. Of course that is helpful only if the collection was quite close in time to the GSK tests. Given the suspicions of doping, it would be better if all physiological tests like these included measuring HT. That can’t rule out the possibility of blood manipulation, but if a passport baseline has been previously established, you can at least make an estimate of how much the HT might have been elevated, and from there estimate how much the V02max might have been affected.

E.g., if his past passport tests showed a HT ranging from 42-45, and his HT on the day of the physiological tests is within that range, then—assuming he wasn’t blood doping before all of the passport tests, including during the period used to establish the baseline—he probably is limited to about a 7% increase in HT from doping. The relationship of HT increase to V02max is variable, different for different riders and different conditions, but one might expect on average roughly a 5% increase in V02max under these conditions. So if he measured 84 in the lab, the clean value might be as low as 80. And if the estimate is 88 at racing weight, about 84 clean.

These are very rough estimates, based on a roughly average HT, an average relationship between HT and V02max, and considering worst case scenarios, i.e., getting away with maximum manipulation. But I think we can say that if the passport is doing its job, it’s limiting riders to roughly a 5% increase in V02max, again, on average. Even then, there are qualifications, for there are ways to beat the passport, at least the HT rise, e.g., diluting the blood to mask a transfusion and large increase in red cell mass (which is not directly measured under current protocols). Still, you’d have to transfuse quite a bit of blood to get above that 7% HT increase—more than about half a liter, or the equivalent in packed cells—and if I may wander into psychology here, one has to ask if Froome or anyone else would really think it worthwhile to do that just to make a test—not a race, where far more is to be gained—look better.

Adding to these considerations is the fact that Froome’s V02max was very similar—in absolute terms, actually a little greater—in the 2007 tests. So if he was blood doping in 2015 to get that V02max, he must have been doing the same in 2007. Either that, or when he lost weight, he actually lost power, too, and used blood doping to regain the lost V02max and power. There has been a lot of head-scratching over how even with the use of PE Froome could transform so suddenly in 2011. Blood doping probably wouldn’t account for all of it, but certainly a significant portion of it would be possible.

 

[attila]

Another thought: the last time I was at 17% body fat I had been inactive for 6 weeks due to a serious injury (I'm a former Futbol player/cyclist).

I was tested at a national gym for VO2 and body fat at the end. My #s on BF were about same as Froome.

Could you tell us which method was used to measure your body fat?

Calipers

 

[Jacques de Molay]

Calipers

So that would mean that your BF% would've been much higher if measured from a body scan, no?

 

[Jacques de Molay]

I read it as releasing the previously collected blood data. Of course that is helpful only if the collection was quite close in time to the GSK tests.

According to the dates provided, the only previous test would've been from a full month prior, on July 13. The GSK session was on August 17, and Froome had another bio-passport test on August 20th. I suppose the latter one would be of more value in terms of proximity to the GSK testing, but the quotes from Swart are still a bit confusing (although I did reach to him about this. I'll post his response).

 

[Jacques de Molay]

The podcast with Ross Tucker and Jeroen Swart has just been posted.
http://thecyclingpodcast.com/podcast/41-the-scientists-speak

OK, I've just given it a full listen.

Meaningless trivia:
The women doing the intro sounds like the same voice used in the Alpecin Caffeine Shampoo ads on Eurosport.

As an aside: I hadn't realized that Jeroen Swart raced professionally as an MTB rider for a few years.

Swart also provides some background on the GSK story. David Epstein was first approached to cover the GSK session but he was unavailable. Richard Moore was the second choice.

Here are what I felt were some noteworthy moments from the podcast.

@10:30 Ross Tucker calling out the Sky PR aspects of the test. Dismisses the purpose of the tests, calling it a “strategic move and a Public Relations move.” Swart disagrees with this, however.
(The topic of these tests supposedly being done by Froome himself, independent of Team Sky, is never mentioned.)

@19:10
Lionel Bernie tries to discredit TV science.
Ross Tucker defends the practice of basing calculations from TV footage as long as one is “sensible” in their approach, and goes on to explain that many of their estimated figures have, in fact, turned out to be quite accurate.

@31:55
Jeroen Swart directly addresses The Clinic! (As Ross chuckles slightly in the background)
Swart explains his statement about Froome being the only rider to release such data. He was referring specifically to Tour winners, and not riders such as Pinot. So there!

Swart doesn’t feel that releasing ABP data would be prudent. Too easy to come to invalid conclusions for those not qualified to understand the data.

@35:20
Lionel Bernie questions Tucker’s professional responsibility based on the tone and tenor of his tweets. Ross well defends himself by referring to “pattern recognition” and how that shapes his perspective.

@40:00
Ross addresses Bilharzia.

@41:30
Swart explains a bit about the 2007 test. Stresses the fact that the testing was done by scientists at The Swiss Olympic Center, independent of the UCI, and that the results were then sent to Zorzoli and the UCI. He’s been in touch directly with those Swiss scientists and is confident in the reliability and validity of those tests.

@44:00
Swart refutes the notion that Froome’s weight loss was the main factor in his transformation. Says it was only one part of the equation. He goes on to explain that Froome carries fat “centrally” which makes him appear really lean, despite his body fat being quite high, such as when he tested at 10% pre-vuelta while looking “absolutely emaciated.”
[I'm still not quite sure what to make of that]

 

[Dear Wiggo]

A quick search tells me intramuscular fat is lost as a priority over subcutaneous. Swart is saying Froome stores his fat "internally" vs subcutaneously. This seems a bit of a leap.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Thanks for the summary, Jacques, much appreciated!

 

[motty89]

First 45 minutes were good, last 15min were the presenters ripping in to tucker after he'd left.

 

[Merckx index]

Ross unwittingly provides another criticism of Froome when he says that every kid growing up in S. Africa worries about schisto. Yet Froome had the disease for years, and didn’t know it?

The argument that you don’t publish because ignorant people will misinterpret is so misguided. The people who will misinterpret data are the same people who are clamoring loudest when no data are released. There is nothing to lose by releasing data, they aren’t going to complain any louder than they already are.

Swart says it’s not just weight loss, but multiple factors, schisto, tactics, not being a team leader, etc. But none of this explains the overnight transformation. If anything, a multi-factorial analysis strongly implies a gradual, not rapid, transformation. What are the odds that every single factor changed during a three week period? In fact, one of those alleged factors, not being a team leader, did not change in the Vuelta, not until Froome's transformation was already obvious.

 

[Ventoux Boar]

The podcast with Ross Tucker and Jeroen Swart has just been posted.
http://thecyclingpodcast.com/podcast/41-the-scientists-speak

OK, I've just given it a full listen.

@41:30
Swart explains a bit about the 2007 test. Stresses the fact that the testing was done by scientists at The Swiss Olympic Center, independent of the UCI, and that the results were then sent to Zarzoli and the UCI. He’s been in touch directly with those Swiss scientists and is confident in the reliability and validity of those tests.

Awkward. 'The most transformed cyclist in history' is seemingly one of the most mismanaged. Presumably Brailsford knew Froome had the physiology of a Tour winner, yet was ready to drop him from the team. That's amazing.

 

[sniper]

Havent heard podcast yet.
is it fair to say Swart was defending Froome?
If so, you wonder why.
If he's independent and unbiased he should really stick to defending only the accuracy/validity of his 2015 tests.

 

[harryh]

Re:

If he's independent and unbiased he should really stick to defending only the accuracy/validity of his 2015 tests.

Why should he? Because you don't trust those Swiss scientists?

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

If he's independent and unbiased he should really stick to defending only the accuracy/validity of his 2015 tests.

Why should he? Because you don't trust those Swiss scientists?

Why should he be independent? Well that was the point?

Why trust the scientists in Switzerland? Well JV complains about MCE, why trust anyone? You trust Zorzoli or Saugy?

Still no answer to how Froome goes from a weak dom in Poland to GT supremo in 2 weeks!

 

[Dear Wiggo]

The podcast with Ross Tucker and Jeroen Swart has just been posted.
http://thecyclingpodcast.com/podcast/41-the-scientists-speak

@44:00
Swart refutes the notion that Froome’s weight loss was the main factor in his transformation. Says it was only one part of the equation. He goes on to explain that Froome carries fat “centrally” which makes him appear really lean, despite his body fat being quite high, such as when he tested at 10% pre-vuelta while looking “absolutely emaciated.”
[I'm still not quite sure what to make of that]

http://www.hussmanfitness.org/html/TSInsideOut.html

My understanding is fat metabolises better warm / with blood flow. It makes more sense that intramuscular "centrally" stored fat will warm up quicker and is closer to muscle and will be used more quickly than subcutaneous fat.

I am intuiting and do not know for sure, but I'd like a lot more explanation from Swart on his claim. It's not passing the smell test.

 

[King Boonen]

Re:

Havent heard podcast yet.
is it fair to say Swart was defending Froome?
If so, you wonder why.
If he's independent and unbiased he should really stick to defending only the accuracy/validity of his 2015 tests.

So you've not listened to it, you ask a question, assume the answer and then cast a load of aspersions about someone?

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Re: Re:

Havent heard podcast yet.
is it fair to say Swart was defending Froome?
If so, you wonder why.
If he's independent and unbiased he should really stick to defending only the accuracy/validity of his 2015 tests.

So you've not listened to it, you ask a question, assume the answer and then cast a load of aspersions about someone?

Incorrect. Are you ESL? Coz that is not what his post did at all.

 

[King Boonen]

Re: Re:

Havent heard podcast yet.
is it fair to say Swart was defending Froome?
If so, you wonder why.
If he's independent and unbiased he should really stick to defending only the accuracy/validity of his 2015 tests.

So you've not listened to it, you ask a question, assume the answer and then cast a load of aspersions about someone?

Incorrect. Are you ESL? Coz that is not what his post did at all.

That's exactly what it does, adding If to the start of a sentence doesn't disguise that.

What's ESL?