The Froome Files, test data only thread

[simoni]

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).

The quote is ambigious and could equally mean that the request for them to release any contemporary blood values was made on the day of the test. Grammar, punctuation etc....

 

[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).

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

Uh huh.

The passport can't be used to prove that you are clean, it can only be used to prove that you have doped.

 

[acoggan]

Calipers

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

Not necessarily. That is, the equations used to estimate percent body fat from skin fold thicknesses can both over- and under-estimate.

 

[acoggan]

Re:

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.

Central body fat is that stored within the abdominal cavity, not intramuscularly.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Re: Re:

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.

Central body fat is that stored within the abdominal cavity, not intramuscularly.

So second only to the brain and lungs in terms of bloodflow, right? And second warmest part of the body after the brain too, right?

 

[Dear Wiggo]

An excess of visceral fat is known as central obesity, or "belly fat", in which the abdomen protrudes excessively and new developments such as the Body Volume Index (BVI) are specifically designed to measure abdominal volume and abdominal fat. Excess visceral fat is also linked to type 2 diabetes,[9] insulin resistance,[10] inflammatory diseases,[11] and other obesity-related diseases.[12]

Men are more likely to have fat stored in the abdomen due to sex hormone differences. Female sex hormone causes fat to be stored in the buttocks, thighs, and hips in women.[13][14] When women reach menopause and the estrogen produced by the ovaries declines, fat migrates from the buttocks, hips and thighs to the waist;[15] later fat is stored in the abdomen.[16]

High-intensity exercise is one way to effectively reduce total abdominal fat.[17][18] One study suggests at least 10 MET-hours per week of aerobic exercise is required for visceral fat reduction.[19]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adipose_tissue

Doesn't smell any better.

 

[acoggan]

Re: Re:

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.

Central body fat is that stored within the abdominal cavity, not intramuscularly.

So second only to the brain and lungs in terms of bloodflow, right? And second warmest part of the body after the brain too, right?

Fat doesn't "melt", so emphasis on temperature is a red herring.

More relevantly, everyone has their own body fat distribution, so the suggestion that Froome could appear quite lean while still measuring 10% body fat via DXA is, at a minimum, quite plausible. (That's especially true given the assumptions needed to convert X-ray attenuation to body composition.)

Bottom line: you're barking up the wrong tree here.

 

[harryh]

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?

I trust the Swiss scientists who done the test. At least until they are proven to be dodgy

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

Someone gave him a magic pill after Poland which overnight changed his physique completely and permanently?

 

[sniper]

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).

you're being rather pessimistic here.
he (or any athlete) can do a lot to at least take away suspicions he/she is doping.
froome could do an asthma test, could have done a proper bilharzia test, etc.
Also, I posted a list of ideas from Ross Tucker which you continue to ignore.
Merckx Index has also posted a couple of straightforward things Froome could do but hasn't done. .

let's stay objective and optimistic here.

 

[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).

you're being rather pessimistic here.
he (or any athlete) can do a lot to at least diminish the likelihood he/she is doping.
froome could do an asthma test, could have done a proper bilharzia test, etc.
Also, I posted a list of ideas from Ross Tucker which you continue to ignore.
Merckx Index has also (repeatedly) posted a couple of straightforward things Froome could do but hasn't done. .

let's stay objective and optimistic here.

I'm just stating objective facts. That is, while there might be lots of things you can do to try to convince people that you don't dope (i.e., engage in PR), at the end of the day you can't prove a negative. Given that, if it were me I wouldn't even bother, figuring that whether or not I doped was between me, my conscience, and the sporting authorities (and my employer, if they required additional measures).

 

[gillan1969]

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?

I trust the Swiss scientists who done the test. At least until they are proven to be dodgy

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

Someone gave him a magic pill after Poland which overnight changed his physique completely and permananently?

post Vrijman i think its fair to be sceptical about any UCI document which purpotedly comes from an independant source don't you?

The Vuelta, if you hadn't noticed, is a rather ripe event for some...how might you say...unexpected results...presumably its not a strecth to think that if you were to 'experiment' with a program then this might be the event to do it...if a rider is about to lose his contract you might then reduce those odds further of an 'experiment'....he would have just been another footnote in a sport with many a footnote

so...whilst Swart might speculate (and speculating is what he is doing on very incomplete data), as to what might be the reasons for the transformation (along with Wiggins proably the most amazing ever in pro cycling -same team...mmm..shorten those odds further).......the balance of probabalties suggests PEDs. It is the most likely explanantion by a long, long way.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Re: Re:

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.

Central body fat is that stored within the abdominal cavity, not intramuscularly.

So second only to the brain and lungs in terms of bloodflow, right? And second warmest part of the body after the brain too, right?

Fat doesn't "melt", so emphasis on temperature is a red herring.

More relevantly, everyone has their own body fat distribution, so the suggestion that Froome could appear quite lean while still measuring 10% body fat via DXA is, at a minimum, quite plausible. (That's especially true given the assumptions needed to convert X-ray attenuation to body composition.)

Bottom line: you're barking up the wrong tree here.

It was 17%.

 

[harryh]

BF 10%:




BF 4-5%?:

 

[Ventoux Boar]

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?

I trust the Swiss scientists who done the test. At least until they are proven to be dodgy

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

Someone gave him a magic pill after Poland which overnight changed his physique completely and permananently?

post Vrijman i think its fair to be sceptical about any UCI document which purpotedly comes from an independant source don't you?

The Vuelta, if you hadn't noticed, is a rather ripe event for some...how might you say...unexpected results...presumably its not a strecth to think that if you were to 'experiment' with a program then this might be the event to do it...if a rider is about to lose his contract you might then reduce those odds further of an 'experiment'....he would have just been another footnote in a sport with many a footnote

so...whilst Swart might speculate (and speculating is what he is doing on very incomplete data), as to what might be the reasons for the transformation (along with Wiggins proably the most amazing ever in pro cycling -same team...mmm..shorten those odds further).......the balance of probabalties suggests PEDs. It is the most likely explanantion by a long, long way.

It's only a transformation if the 2007 data is fake. Otherwise you have a rider finally performing to his potential despite riding for an overrated manager, on a crap team, with a 'difficult' team leader.

 

[Benotti69]

Apparently according to Swart, Froome stores his body fat internally.......i do the same with my muscles. Bit like saying 'big boned'.

 

[sniper]

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).

you're being rather pessimistic here.
he (or any athlete) can do a lot to at least diminish the likelihood he/she is doping.
froome could do an asthma test, could have done a proper bilharzia test, etc.
Also, I posted a list of ideas from Ross Tucker which you continue to ignore.
Merckx Index has also (repeatedly) posted a couple of straightforward things Froome could do but hasn't done. .

let's stay objective and optimistic here.

I'm just stating objective facts. That is, while there might be lots of things you can do to try to convince people that you don't dope (i.e., engage in PR), at the end of the day you can't prove a negative. Given that, if it were me I wouldn't even bother, figuring that whether or not I doped was between me, my conscience, and the sporting authorities (and my employer, if they required additional measures).

What about making up diseases. Would you go there?
if not, don't you think Froome would do good to at least back those parts of his story up with some reliable medical certificates?

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

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?

I trust the Swiss scientists who done the test. At least until they are proven to be dodgy

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

Someone gave him a magic pill after Poland which overnight changed his physique completely and permananently?

post Vrijman i think its fair to be sceptical about any UCI document which purpotedly comes from an independant source don't you?

The Vuelta, if you hadn't noticed, is a rather ripe event for some...how might you say...unexpected results...presumably its not a strecth to think that if you were to 'experiment' with a program then this might be the event to do it...if a rider is about to lose his contract you might then reduce those odds further of an 'experiment'....he would have just been another footnote in a sport with many a footnote

so...whilst Swart might speculate (and speculating is what he is doing on very incomplete data), as to what might be the reasons for the transformation (along with Wiggins proably the most amazing ever in pro cycling -same team...mmm..shorten those odds further).......the balance of probabalties suggests PEDs. It is the most likely explanantion by a long, long way.

It's only a transformation if the 2007 data is fake. Otherwise you have a rider finally performing to his potential despite riding for an overrated manager, on a crap team, with a 'difficult' team leader.

Finally!!!!!!! Yeah someone took the handbrake off and VAVAFROOME and away he went.

So Brailsford held Froome back? Amazing how no one else wanted this "big engine GT superstar' who just needed a decent manager and to be made team leader! Santa is coming soon

Amazing thing about Froome is he should have 4 GT wins under his belt. If he did not play Lieutenant to Wiggns for 2 of them he would have 3 TdFs and a Vuelta!

 

[blackcat]

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).

tell Goedel that *** ***


*** if mods gotta edit, just delete the last term, it was supposed to be comic rhetoric, <think> Judd Apatow or someone from a stoner comedy.

 

[gillan1969]

Re: Re:

my my.....you've fallen for 'the fax' hook line and sinker...the unbeliveable has been believed

 

[Rob27172]

Re: Re:

I'm just stating objective facts. That is, while there might be lots of things you can do to try to convince people that you don't dope (i.e., engage in PR), at the end of the day you can't prove a negative. Given that, if it were me I wouldn't even bother, figuring that whether or not I doped was between me, my conscience, and the sporting authorities (and my employer, if they required additional measures).[/quote]

Unfortunately for you that is way off base
If that was the case why is Armstrong being sued for millions of dollars

It is not just up to froome and his conscience it is up to his sponsors who are being fraudulently deprived of funds
The public who are buying kit and bikes based upon a fraudulent performance and a lie
The race organisers who are paying out prize money in contradiction to the rules of the races they put on and in contradiction to the rules the riders signed up to play by
It is in contradiction to the rules of the sponsors who pay the bonuses and other primes within the races

So actually there are a hell of a lot of people who froome should be concerned about - because history proves that when he finally does get busted there will be a lot of people queuing up to ask for their money back

 

[gillan1969]

"Is this search to find your limits a way of keeping you going?". "Yes without question. It's very exciting to explore yourself and challenge your limits. And I don't fell like I've reached the maximum-strength yet. I still spend a lot of time, effort and energy to improve in every aspect. I try to make my training more optimal. I'm open to new methods. I'm making small changes/modifications on the bike. Finding a more aerodynamic way of sitting on the bike. I'm working on all the small aspects, because I've reached the point, where I want to be the best".

Marginal Gains - Check

The weight is everything XXXXXXX is moving his 72 kg. a bit in the chair, and turns the coffee cup a bit. Before the start of the tour he has to get rid of two kg. - and during the race one more kg has to go. Two three kilos is the difference between winning the Tour and finishing way back. "When it goes up hill, the weight means almost everything" XXXXXXX says. This became clear to him when he started his work with YYYYY in ZZZZ. YYYY himself has in an interview given a very illustrative example of what the weight loss of XXXXXX has meant for his career. He compared XXXXXXXXX with Indurain. The big guy from Spain could produce 55o watts when he was working on the bike just below the acid limit. XXXXXXXX could only produce 480 watts. But what settled it all in the mountains was the relation between watts and the weight. Here Indurains engine was able to pull 6.8 watts per kilo (because of his weight of 79 kg). XXXXXXXX was only weighing 69 kg and had therefore 7.0 watts per kilo...0.2 watts more...

Five years ago XXXXXX was weighing 76 kg, which mean that he would only be able to produce 6.0 watts per kilo - this made him too heavy on the steepest mountains to keep up. Today he's able to keep up with the most specialized mountain riders, and has definitively made it clear, that XXXXXXX can both ride on flat roads as well as in steep mountains. But the weight has to be OK for the prologue on the BBBBB of July in France. With speed approx. 50 km/h important seconds can be saved by small corrections in positioning on the cycle etc."

Weight loss - check

Guess the rider?

as Bon Scott said...only the names have been changed...to protect the guilty

 

[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).

you're being rather pessimistic here.
he (or any athlete) can do a lot to at least diminish the likelihood he/she is doping.
froome could do an asthma test, could have done a proper bilharzia test, etc.
Also, I posted a list of ideas from Ross Tucker which you continue to ignore.
Merckx Index has also (repeatedly) posted a couple of straightforward things Froome could do but hasn't done. .

let's stay objective and optimistic here.

I'm just stating objective facts. That is, while there might be lots of things you can do to try to convince people that you don't dope (i.e., engage in PR), at the end of the day you can't prove a negative. Given that, if it were me I wouldn't even bother, figuring that whether or not I doped was between me, my conscience, and the sporting authorities (and my employer, if they required additional measures).

What about making up diseases. Would you go there?
if not, don't you think Froome would do good to at least back those parts of his story up with some reliable medical certificates?

Of course not.

As for Froome, I don't really care what he does or doesn't do.

 

[blackcat]

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.

actually, when Froome is in his final Barloworld year, Brailsford and British Cycling had indeed already tested him. Because Froome wanted a big time ride for the new team, and he could also race under his mothers origin of passport, and be a UK passport holder... which worked for David Brailsford seeking to buiild a british home-grown*** protour tem. Brailsford tested him(Manchester cycling centre?) and Froome did test thru the roof. Brailsford did say he had the physiology to win in July.

I am not making this $hit up, I puit it all in the first thread I made supporting Froome and his transformation and potential. I may have put the link in. ofcourse I knew he was doping like all of them, so what, he was only beatiing another bunch of dopers, each to their own.

*** at second best, they could sell a guy from Kenya and lived most of his live in South Africa with the South African accent, they could sell him as British, when he very definitely(poor grammar) was not British in any way shape or form except to the loins he extricated himself from 27years before.

 

[acoggan]

Re: Re:

Unfortunately for you that is way off base
If that was the case why is Armstrong being sued for millions of dollars

It is not just up to froome and his conscience it is up to his sponsors who are being fraudulently deprived of funds
The public who are buying kit and bikes based upon a fraudulent performance and a lie
The race organisers who are paying out prize money in contradiction to the rules of the races they put on and in contradiction to the rules the riders signed up to play by
It is in contradiction to the rules of the sponsors who pay the bonuses and other primes within the races

So actually there are a hell of a lot of people who froome should be concerned about - because history proves that when he finally does get busted there will be a lot of people queuing up to ask for their money back

I fail to see your logic here. If a rider hasn't doped, they haven't doped. If they have, and are caught, they face all sorts of negative consequences, which are only potentially exacerbated if they have proclaimed their innocence all along.

The smart move would be 1) don't dope, and 2) when asked, honestly reply "I don't dope - next question." Again, only if my employer expected more from me would I go beyond that.

 

[blackcat]

"Is this search to find your limits a way of keeping you going?". "Yes without question. It's very exciting to explore yourself and challenge your limits. And I don't fell like I've reached the maximum-strength yet.

its called onanism.

and see what the old testament says.

take your maximum strength up with peter north dude http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Peter+North&defid=1005485