The Froome Files, test data only thread

[Jacques de Molay]

Re:

the twitter feeds of burnley and swart are goldmines.

What does "8. Dez" mean?

Is that supposed to be Dec 8, as in December, 8?

 

[Jacques de Molay]

Re: Re:

It also contradicts the caveat they provided in the GSK report

Who is "they"?

Do you mean these guys?

Dr. Phill Bell & Matt Furber
Senior Scientists
GSK Human Performance Lab

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

the twitter feeds of burnley and swart are goldmines.

What does "8. Dez" mean?

Is that supposed to be Dec 8, as in December, 8?

that's it.

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

the twitter feeds of burnley and swart are goldmines.

I liked this one from Mark Burnley.
It's an exercise in critical thinking. Pointed out that the BMI on the fax is false, he responds:

Mark Burnley ‏@DrMarkBurnley 8. Dez.
@EwonSprokler @JeroenSwart @BySpoke @maximus_hoggus so there's a rounding error on a fax. BMI means nothing to athletes anyway.

Mark Burnley ‏@DrMarkBurnley 8. Dez.
@EwonSprokler @JeroenSwart @BySpoke @maximus_hoggus still no reason to doubt the data. Policy might be to round down BMI. Useless anyway.

Ewon Zeilstra ‏@EwonSprokler 8. Dez.
@DrMarkBurnley @JeroenSwart @BySpoke @maximus_hoggus either that or his weight was wrong.

Mark Burnley ‏@DrMarkBurnley 8. Dez.
@EwonSprokler @JeroenSwart @BySpoke @maximus_hoggus spoiler: sports physiologists know how to use weighing scales.


Or this one from Swart, redefining "way to miss the point":

BySpoke ‏@BySpoke 7. Dez.
@jeroenswart @drmarkburnley @ewonsprokler There are dissimilarities between the two documents. Seems to me it is legitimate to question why.

Jeroen Swart ‏@JeroenSwart 7. Dez.
@BySpoke @DrMarkBurnley @EwonSprokler ok. I have confirmed that the alterations were made by Esquire to highlight certain sections.

Being limited to 140 characters is always fraught with problems.

However the responses are a little odd because they are both making assumptions on the BMI and the scales. It also contradicts the caveat they provided in the GSK report;

*Results taken from original report from Swiss Olympic Medical Centre in July 2007. No protocol or test equipment information provided in report, therefore direct comparisons should be interpreted with a degree of caution.

Also makes you wonder what was on the other 4-5 pages under the top sheet of the fax

You said it right.
They've been making a whole series of assumptions about the data, issues about which any unbiased scientist would remain neutral/agnostic.
Burnley's incapacity/unwillingness to even consider the possibility that the 2007 weight might be off is baffling. "BMI off? must be a rounding issue. And useless anyway."
Hilarious considering how Swart and Moore were first on the scene to point out the 68kg from the 2006 CWG chart can't be trusted because froome's height is off.

 

[thehog]

The interesting aspect is the report date is "August 17th 2015" which incudes the 2007 data which is the same day as the Froome testing, which suggest they had the 2007 data in hand prior to the test? It wasn't magically found as Moore had described?

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

the twitter feeds of burnley and swart are goldmines.

I liked this one from Mark Burnley.
It's an exercise in critical thinking. Pointed out that the BMI on the fax is false, he responds:

Mark Burnley ‏@DrMarkBurnley 8. Dez.
@EwonSprokler @JeroenSwart @BySpoke @maximus_hoggus so there's a rounding error on a fax. BMI means nothing to athletes anyway.

Mark Burnley ‏@DrMarkBurnley 8. Dez.
@EwonSprokler @JeroenSwart @BySpoke @maximus_hoggus still no reason to doubt the data. Policy might be to round down BMI. Useless anyway.

Ewon Zeilstra ‏@EwonSprokler 8. Dez.
@DrMarkBurnley @JeroenSwart @BySpoke @maximus_hoggus either that or his weight was wrong.

Mark Burnley ‏@DrMarkBurnley 8. Dez.
@EwonSprokler @JeroenSwart @BySpoke @maximus_hoggus spoiler: sports physiologists know how to use weighing scales.


Or this one from Swart, redefining "way to miss the point":

BySpoke ‏@BySpoke 7. Dez.
@jeroenswart @drmarkburnley @ewonsprokler There are dissimilarities between the two documents. Seems to me it is legitimate to question why.

Jeroen Swart ‏@JeroenSwart 7. Dez.
@BySpoke @DrMarkBurnley @EwonSprokler ok. I have confirmed that the alterations were made by Esquire to highlight certain sections.

Being limited to 140 characters is always fraught with problems.

However the responses are a little odd because they are both making assumptions on the BMI and the scales. It also contradicts the caveat they provided in the GSK report;

*Results taken from original report from Swiss Olympic Medical Centre in July 2007. No protocol or test equipment information provided in report, therefore direct comparisons should be interpreted with a degree of caution.

Also makes you wonder what was on the other 4-5 pages under the top sheet of the fax

You said it right.
They've been making a whole series of assumptions about the data, issues about which any unbiased scientist would remain neutral/agnostic.
Burnley's incapacity/unwillingness to even consider the possibility that the 2007 weight might be off is baffling. "BMI off? must be a rounding issue. And useless anyway."
Hilarious considering how Swart and Moore were first on the scene to point out the 68kg from the 2006 CWG chart can't be trusted because froome's height is off.

I think what you're seeing is a "confirmation bias" from Swart and Burnley.

In psychology and cognitive science, confirmation bias (or confirmatory bias) is a tendency to search for or interpret information in a way that confirms one's preconceptions, leading to statistical errors.

 

[acoggan]

Re: Re:

Speaking of those that commented on Froome's testing (Swart, Vayer and Burnley)...
https://drmarkburnley.wordpress.com/2015/12/15/this-oxygen-uptake-value-doesnt-look-right-on-interpreting-exercise-tests-in-athletes/

Mark Burnley and Andy Coggan, both on the editorial board of the journal that pubilshed Coyle's crap paper on Armstrong.

Well aside from the fact that I was on the Editorial Board from 2008 to 2014, whereas Coyle's paper on Armstrong was published in 2005, there's also the fact that Editorial Board members really have little to no say-so into how a journal operates (at least JAP, anyway). Thus, your attempt to tar me in this manner says far more about you/your motivations than it does about me.

 

[acoggan]

Re: Re:

PS Burnley does think rather a lot of himself..
"Now, I consider myself something of an expert here. In fact, I’d say that the number of people in the world who understand the VO2 response to exercise better than me could comfortably fit in a double-decker bus, and some of them are dead."

Yeah, I found that a bit off-putting as well.

That said, it's probably a true statement (as it's not that complicated a subject).

 

[djpbaltimore]

IMO, just about anybody that has a doctorate can make a similar claim about their narrow area of expertise. Of course, that does not mean that you should voice that fact aloud or in writing.

I was interested in the CWG weight discussion because it has been brought up frequently without attribution. I dug up a few of the relevant tweets. In fairness to Moore, he was first on the scene because he was responding to a tweet directed at him. It should be noted that one of the biggest skeptics (last tweet) even agrees with the premise that the data is unreliable. Nowhere do Dr. Swart or Moore say that the weight cannot be trusted. Comparing the situation with the 2007 data is an apples to oranges comparison. One is not verifiable, the other is performed in a laboratory setting. The reliability of one does not influence the reliability of the other.

Simon Denton ‏@SimonDenton2 Dec 5
@FIacoo @tomstaniford @richardmoore73 Richard this appears genuine & needs explaining!

Daniel Friebe ‏@friebos Dec 5
@SimonDenton2 @FIacoo @tomstaniford @richardmoore73 Simon, are you serious? Look at his height. You think these are verified figures?

Richard Moore ‏@richardmoore73 Dec 5
@friebos @SimonDenton2 @FIacoo @tomstaniford I'd be suspicious of his height gain of, what, 3 inches in a year?

Jeroen Swart ‏@JeroenSwart Dec 5
@TeddyCutler @triGazL @EwonSprokler @Scienceofsport yes and on the same report his height is 175cm.

Ewon Zeilstra ‏@EwonSprokler Dec 5
@JeroenSwart @TeddyCutler @triGazL @Scienceofsport True. Which still doesn't proove the weight is wrong, mind. But does make it unreliable

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

Speaking of those that commented on Froome's testing (Swart, Vayer and Burnley)...
https://drmarkburnley.wordpress.com/2015/12/15/this-oxygen-uptake-value-doesnt-look-right-on-interpreting-exercise-tests-in-athletes/

Mark Burnley and Andy Coggan, both on the editorial board of the journal that pubilshed Coyle's crap paper on Armstrong.

Well aside from the fact that I was on the Editorial Board from 2008 to 2014, whereas Coyle's paper on Armstrong was published in 2005, there's also the fact that Editorial Board members really have little to no say-so into how a journal operates (at least JAP, anyway). Thus, your attempt to tar me in this manner says far more about you/your motivations than it does about me.

I found it a funny coincidence, but I made that sound more suggestive than it should have been, apologies there.

Anyway, no time to beat around the bush:
I find large segments of the discipline called "sports science" to be intellectually disingenuous, especially there where the aspect of doping is (deliberately) overlooked and ignored.
I could link to dozens of conference programs, peerreviewed articles, and other scientific output about sports nutrition, vo2max and training methods in topsport, where the d-word is not mentioned anywhere.
That's pseudo-science right there. Intellectually disingenuous and scientifically misleading.
Luckily, there are some wonderful exceptions (Ross Tucker being one of my favorits at the moment).

What do you think?

 

[sniper]

this is how serious Swart took the suggestion that there might be something wrong with the 2007 datasheet.

BySpoke ‏@BySpoke 7. Dez.
@jeroenswart @drmarkburnley @ewonsprokler With respect, you do know there are other issues beyond the highlighted text?

Jeroen Swart ‏@JeroenSwart 7. Dez.
@BySpoke @DrMarkBurnley @EwonSprokler yes yes. There's also the grassy knoll. You haven't brought that in yet.

A real gent, and totally unbiased there. Openminded. Eager to discuss and share knowledge.

if you go through his and burnley's twitter feed, that's only one of many occasions where they just shut down quite civil/neutral attempts by other twitterers at discussing the possibility of froome cheating, either with insults or with ridicule, or, even more baffling, with the suggestion that the inquiring twitterer shouldn't be so rude and offensive.

 

[sniper]

The interesting aspect is the report date is "August 17th 2015" which incudes the 2007 data which is the same day as the Froome testing, which suggest they had the 2007 data in hand prior to the test? It wasn't magically found as Moore had described?

17th of August?
Seems Mark Burnley has got more backtracking to do.

Ewon Zeilstra ‏@EwonSprokler 7. Dez.
@JeroenSwart @BySpoke @DrMarkBurnley
Thanks for checking, but that was not what byspoke referred to. Dissimilarities concern basic make-up

Mark Burnley ‏@DrMarkBurnley 7. Dez.
@EwonSprokler @JeroenSwart @BySpoke it's a fax of test feedback. Only the primary data is relevant and Jeroen is checking that out.

Ewon Zeilstra ‏@EwonSprokler 7. Dez.
@DrMarkBurnley @JeroenSwart @BySpoke Lol, he [Swart] had two or three months to check it out. Has to be pointed out to him by a 'moron' (his words)

Mark Burnley ‏@DrMarkBurnley 7. Dez.
@EwonSprokler @JeroenSwart @BySpoke no he didn't. Data discovered at 11th hour. Feedback. Data from lab archives (if there) takes longer.

 

[djpbaltimore]

It is important to note that Dr. Swart then reached out to both the scientists at the lab and the magazine for clarification. Actions speak louder than words (or tweets). I would ask people to go to the source and read the tweets yourself before making a judgment. The vast majority are courteous, informative, and respectful. I feel the negative ones have been cherry-picked for effect and don't represent the tone of the discussions.

Jeroen Swart ‏@JeroenSwart Dec 7
.@BySpoke @DrMarkBurnley @EwonSprokler ok. I have confirmed that the alterations were made by Esquire to highlight certain sections.

Jeroen Swart ‏@JeroenSwart Dec 7
@maximus_hoggus @EwonSprokler @DrMarkBurnley we've been asked by the scientists who collected that data whether we can publish it jointly.

Jeroen Swart ‏@JeroenSwart Dec 7
@maximus_hoggus @EwonSprokler @DrMarkBurnley I have asked them to check it for errors in the interim. But I'm sure they would said so by now

EDIT. For the purpose of fairness, if Vayer is off limits as I was told a few days ago, can we also start removing Dr. Burnley from the active discussion. He is not a principle investigator in any of these studies.

 

[thehog]

The interesting aspect is the report date is "August 17th 2015" which incudes the 2007 data which is the same day as the Froome testing, which suggest they had the 2007 data in hand prior to the test? It wasn't magically found as Moore had described?

17th of August?
Seems Mark Burnley has got more backtracking to do.

Ewon Zeilstra ‏@EwonSprokler 7. Dez.
@JeroenSwart @BySpoke @DrMarkBurnley
Thanks for checking, but that was not what byspoke referred to. Dissimilarities concern basic make-up

Mark Burnley ‏@DrMarkBurnley 7. Dez.
@EwonSprokler @JeroenSwart @BySpoke it's a fax of test feedback. Only the primary data is relevant and Jeroen is checking that out.

Ewon Zeilstra ‏@EwonSprokler 7. Dez.
@DrMarkBurnley @JeroenSwart @BySpoke Lol, he [Swart] had two or three months to check it out. Has to be pointed out to him by a 'moron' (his words)

Mark Burnley ‏@DrMarkBurnley 7. Dez.
@EwonSprokler @JeroenSwart @BySpoke no he didn't. Data discovered at 11th hour. Feedback. Data from lab archives (if there) takes longer.

It just gets more and more confusing with respect the 2007 data. It appears none of the stakeholders seem to know when, how and where this data came from but then they assert the validity of it. Very odd. I’m sure there’s a logical explanation.

Looks to me like the 2007 data was in hand for sometime

 

[djpbaltimore]

I"m guessing the most logical reason is that they have seen the primary source data or have been assured by the primary investigators responsible for it. That seems to be the implication of the tweets in question.

 

[thehog]

Mark Burnley ‏@DrMarkBurnley 7. Dec.
@EwonSprokler @JeroenSwart @BySpoke no he didn't. Data discovered at 11th hour. Feedback. Data from lab archives (if there) takes longer.

Bizarre, truly bizarre...

 

[sniper]

Mark Burnley ‏@DrMarkBurnley 7. Dec.
@EwonSprokler @JeroenSwart @BySpoke no he didn't. Data discovered at 11th hour. Feedback. Data from lab archives (if there) takes longer.

Bizarre, truly bizarre...

It is bizarre that they tried to radiate such confidence over the 2007 data, and are now caught up in their own inconsistencies.

what I found interesting as well there was to see Burnley speaking on behalf of Swart.
Was Burnley himself in some way connected to this research?

I'm sure the peerreview in a couple of months will clear up all the issues so we can put this to bed.

 

[thehog]

Mark Burnley ‏@DrMarkBurnley 7. Dec.
@EwonSprokler @JeroenSwart @BySpoke no he didn't. Data discovered at 11th hour. Feedback. Data from lab archives (if there) takes longer.

Bizarre, truly bizarre...

It is bizarre that they tried to radiate such confidence over the 2007 data, and are now caught up in their own inconsistencies.

what I found interesting as well there was to see Burnley speaking on behalf of Swart.
Was Burnley himself in some way connected to this research?

I'm sure the peerreview in a couple of months will clear up all the issues so we can put this to bed.

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

Agreed, there's a lot of confidence in that statement from Swart. Unless Moore truncated it.

From Moore's article;

Lost and found: This document of Froome’s 2007 clinical tests in Switzerland goes some way to explaining the subsequent dramatic improvement in his race performances

Carrying baggage: The figures highlighted show that Froome’s Body Mass Index (BMI) was abnormally high for an elite cyclist, backing up his claims that this extra weight -— and possibly a parasitic disease since brought under control — hindered his progress

Nothing new: Highlighted at the bottom of the document is the VO2 max figure, which suggests Froome’s capacity for endurance racing and potential to become a Tour champion existed long before he was accused of doping to win cycling races

So Moore/Swart didn't even notice the 'abnormally high BMI' was actually incorrect?

 

[thehog]

The full GSK report is here if anyone is interested:

https://www.gskhpl.com/dyn/_assets/_pdfs/ChrisFroome-BodyCompositionandAerobicPhysiology.pdf

 

[Ventoux Boar]

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

Agreed, there's a lot of confidence in that statement from Swart. Unless Moore truncated it.

You could listen to the podcast, or even ask him on Twitter, but you won't for the reason he explained. This is an excellent example of the cherry-picking and misrepresentation mentioned by Swart. Yet you deny your sole objective is to discredit everyone involved in this exercise.

@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://forum.cyclingnews.com/viewtopic.php?p=1847370#p1847370

 

[thehog]

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

Agreed, there's a lot of confidence in that statement from Swart. Unless Moore truncated it.

You could listen to the podcast, or even ask him on Twitter, but you won't for the reason he explained. This is an excellent example of the cherry-picking and misrepresentation mentioned by Swart. Yet you deny your sole objective is to discredit everyone involved in this exercise.

@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://forum.cyclingnews.com/viewtopic.php?p=1847370#p1847370

The Moore article was the "grande rilascio" on December 3rd of the testing. It should be taken at face value.

Dr. Swart, 3 weeks later after all the talk of contradicting faxes etc. he has walked back on that statement on a podcast? Seriously? The original statement was very matter of fact;

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

How does one move from that statement?

 

[sniper]

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

Agreed, there's a lot of confidence in that statement from Swart. Unless Moore truncated it.

You could listen to the podcast, or even ask him on Twitter, but you won't for the reason he explained. This is an excellent example of the cherry-picking and misrepresentation mentioned by Swart. Yet you deny your sole objective is to discredit everyone involved in this exercise.

@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://forum.cyclingnews.com/viewtopic.php?p=1847370#p1847370

The Moore article was the "grande rilascio" on December 3rd of the testing. It should be taken at face value.

Dr. Swart, 3 weeks later after all the talk of contradicting faxes etc. he has walked back on that statement on a podcast? Seriously? The original statement was very matter of fact;

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

How does one move from that statement?

as soon as they committed to the 2007 data it was always going to be an exercise in backtracking for swart c.s.

 

[Benotti69]

4 years to figure out that Froome just needed to "lose the fat"........yeah sure and no one copped it. That flies...............into a wall.

 

[harryh]

Tucker& Swart part II: http://thecyclingpodcast.com/podcast/42-the-scientists-speak-part-two

Maybe people should listen to this one themselves before making any conclusions from it

 

[djpbaltimore]

The Moore article was the "grande rilascio" on December 3rd of the testing. It should be taken at face value.

Dr. Swart, 3 weeks later after all the talk of contradicting faxes etc. he has walked back on that statement on a podcast? Seriously? The original statement was very matter of fact;

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

How does one move from that statement?

The only place one can move is adding more nuance to the original argument. Another example of good scientific methodology by Dr. Swart.