The Froome Files, test data only thread

[The Hitch]

Ross Tucker impressed me in those podcasts.

Yes, he's a scientist rather than a cheer leader.

This.
Nail head.

I listened for the podcast. It was very odd in parts, Swarts comparison of Wiggins "constant power output" compared to Rassmussen, Contador a Levi in 2007. For one Levi never had that type of attacking ability, nor was Levi attacking against the other two, second Froome in the 2014 Dauphine was attacking in a similarly absurd manner.

The JTL example was also poor, the fact that JTL was testing and training with Sky was ignored prior to joining, Swart pointed to his performance drop at Sky in races. Which is Froome in reverse, Froome was very poor all of his career including Sky then had a right angle improvement. JTL had stepped up a grade and his performance dropped. Froome was in the grupetto in a B race and the decided to almost win a GT 2 weeks later.

Swart starts out defensive (of Froome, Sky, Wiggins...) and just keeps going the whole time. I don't find him credible at all.

Just attempted a discussion with him on twitter. He claimed that Froome conserves energy a lot better than EPO riders did because he doesn't attack as much.

As evidence he cites some stage from 2007 where Contador attacked 50 times. Froome is therefore cleverer, conserves energy.

I made what I consider to be the perfectly reasonable question of how he can take 1 example from 9 years ago and use that to make a definite conclusion that Froome attacks less than an entire generation.

Swart responded with what I consider to be plenty of digressions but never attempted to address the actual question until about 12 tweets later I was able to press him.

His response was simple
Swart: it is well known that constant power produces a better performance than stochastic riding. (something I never actually disputed. Looks like a straw man)
Hitch : Yes it is. What I am disputing is that Froome does more of the former than anyone else did
Swart: he does.

That's it: "He does".

Swart just knows. He's a cycling historian and expert.

He's done the tests and has the evidence, but won't share it with these doubters on twitter.
Sounds a bit like Froome actually.

 

[red_flanders]

Just attempted a discussion with him on twitter. He claimed that Froome conserves energy a lot better than EPO riders did because he doesn't attack as much.

As evidence he cites some stage from 2007 where Contador attacked 50 times. Froome is therefore cleverer, conserves energy.

I made what I consider to be the perfectly reasonable question of how he can take 1 example from 9 years ago and use that to make a definite conclusion that Froome attacks less than an entire generation.

Swart responded with what I consider to be plenty of digressions but never attempted to address the actual question until about 12 tweets later I was able to press him.

His response was simple
Swart: it is well known that constant power produces a better performance than stochastic riding. (something I never actually disputed. Looks like a straw man)
Hitch : Yes it is. What I am disputing is that Froome does more of the former than anyone else did
Swart: he does.

That's it: "He does".

Swart just knows. He's a cycling historian and expert.

He's done the tests and has the evidence, but won't share it with these doubters on twitter.
Sounds a bit like Froome actually.

Interesting. Very scientific analysis.

Sounding more and more like the smokescreen it was obviously meant to be all the time. Again, sad.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Re:

Please post comments to the topic at hand.

Any off topic comments will be deleted.

Just for clarification, I posted the Burnley blog link because it goes to the question of understanding how to interpret data such as we've seen published from the Froome testing, the issues one should consider when looking at such data and the methodologies used to generate the data, and what one can and importantly, cannot infer from it.

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

Please post comments to the topic at hand.

Any off topic comments will be deleted.

Just for clarification, I posted the Burnley blog link because it goes to the question of understanding how to interpret data such as we've seen published from the Froome testing, the issues one should consider when looking at such data and the methodologies used to generate the data, and what one can and importantly, cannot infer from it.

Of all the athletes Mark Burnley has worked with, and on the basis of which he draws most of his knowledge, does he have any clue who was doping and who wasnt? Worse even: did he even care about that question and build in corresponding caveats? I doubt it.

Maybe we should open a thread for pseudo-science?

 

[Lyon]

It was pretty clear from even before the article in Esquire where Swarts allegiance lie, for instance that one time he twittered about conspiracy theorists or some such thing - a preemptive strike if you will. This allegiance doesn't have to be about money or prestige either, but simply about who your friends are.

Of course, having friends in certain circles or being a blabbermouth doesn't make you a bad collector of data, however, it may make you an unreliable interpreter of the same.

 

[The Hitch]

Yes, he's a scientist rather than a cheer leader.

This.
Nail head.

I listened for the podcast. It was very odd in parts, Swarts comparison of Wiggins "constant power output" compared to Rassmussen, Contador a Levi in 2007. For one Levi never had that type of attacking ability, nor was Levi attacking against the other two, second Froome in the 2014 Dauphine was attacking in a similarly absurd manner.

The JTL example was also poor, the fact that JTL was testing and training with Sky was ignored prior to joining, Swart pointed to his performance drop at Sky in races. Which is Froome in reverse, Froome was very poor all of his career including Sky then had a right angle improvement. JTL had stepped up a grade and his performance dropped. Froome was in the grupetto in a B race and the decided to almost win a GT 2 weeks later.

Swart starts out defensive (of Froome, Sky, Wiggins...) and just keeps going the whole time. I don't find him credible at all.

Just attempted a discussion with him on twitter. He claimed that Froome conserves energy a lot better than EPO riders did because he doesn't attack as much.

As evidence he cites some stage from 2007 where Contador attacked 50 times. Froome is therefore cleverer, conserves energy.

I made what I consider to be the perfectly reasonable question of how he can take 1 example from 9 years ago and use that to make a definite conclusion that Froome attacks less than an entire generation.

Swart responded with what I consider to be plenty of digressions but never attempted to address the actual question until about 12 tweets later I was able to press him.

His response was simple
Swart: it is well known that constant power produces a better performance than stochastic riding. (something I never actually disputed. Looks like a straw man)
Hitch : Yes it is. What I am disputing is that Froome does more of the former than anyone else did
Swart: he does.

That's it: "He does".

Swart just knows. He's a cycling historian and expert.

He's done the tests and has the evidence, but won't share it with these doubters on twitter.
Sounds a bit like Froome actually.

Mr Swart wants me to mention all his tweets, as he thinks that changes the context of the discussion. I don't think they do. But here they are.

Hitch: @JeroenSwart you took 1 extreme example from 07, and concluded that sky conserve energy better while climbing than Epo era riders did.

Hitch: @JeroenSwart thats unscientific. 1 could just as easily compare 09 verbier (1 attack) to 13 ventoux (3) and get the reverse conclusion

Swart: @The_Hitch22 the tactic of riding to power is a well known tactic of Sky. It's not a one off.

Swart: @The_Hitch22 true. But on the whole the tactic has been used by them with great success.

Hitch: @JeroenSwart sky didn't invent this "tactic". Setting team pace has always been around. Used notably by uspostal in 04 and liquigas in 2010.

Hitch: @JeroenSwart If anything its way more suspicious if 5 riders on one team are strong enough to drop gt contenders on all the other teams.

Swart: @The_Hitch22 yes but they would only use it to stage attacks. Sky don't follow attacks they wear them down. E.g Evans & TVG attacks.

Swart: @The_Hitch22 it's a fundamentally different approach.

Hitch: @JeroenSwart When Contador was weak (2012 Vuelta) he attacked 50 times a stage. When he was strong (2009 TDF) he attacked only once.

Swart: @The_Hitch22 and now you say it's not something different and that its always been that way? That's clearly not the case.

Swart: @The_Hitch22 commentators have been pointing this Sky pacing out for years. Even to the point of saying it is boring & ruining the sport.

Hitch: @JeroenSwart so you admit that when you said froomes style of ridding conserves energy better, you didn't actually know if it's true or not?

Swart: @The_Hitch22 see my subsequent response.

Swart: @The_Hitch22in addition you're trying to hammer on 1 of 200 points I made in a podcast of 90min. The clinic is where you need to do that.

Hitch: @JeroenSwart Oh we can dance on the other points. Eg when you said there are no witnesses speaking out like there were with Lance...

Hitch: @JeroenSwart are you aware of the hundreds of other dopers in history who also never had witnesses against them?

Swart: @The_Hitch22 on another point: why are you & all the clinic lynching mob anonymous accounts. Why not engage in the open? Just interested...

 

[thehog]

Re:

It was pretty clear from even before the article in Esquire where Swarts allegiance lie, for instance that one time he twittered about conspiracy theorists or some such thing - a preemptive strike if you will. This allegiance doesn't have to be about money or prestige either, but simply about who your friends are.

Of course, having friends in certain circles or being a blabbermouth doesn't make you a bad collector of data, however, it may make you an unreliable interpreter of the same.

Agreed. I don't think there's too much wrong with the way he collected the data and performed the testing. It appeared he was too quick to jump the "he just lost weight" conclusions that answered all questions. Then he went into "I'm going to beat up on anyone who suggests otherwise". Swart has gone from scientist to defender of all things Froome & Sky.

I read the Hitch exchange on Twitter. It's extraordinary. Picking out one stage, in one Tour, comparing it to Wiggins was truly bizarre. When Hitch called him out on it he went to "way to go, just picking up on one of the 200 points I raised on the podcast", which of course is the same as picking out one stage in one Tour.

So Hitch went on to the other draw card Swart comes out with "Where's Betsy, wheres Floyd, where are the whistleblowers at Sky?" Which again is stupid, because cycling has been full of dopers, 1000's of them, in all shapes and sizes, with no whistleblowers or anything like what happened at USPS. It's so shortsighted. It obvious to all that each doping case doesn't mimic what occurred with Armstrong USPS, just as much Armstrong/USPS didn't mimic what happend before them or after them.

 

[The Hitch]

To add to that last post, Mr Swart got very upset that I posted our discussion in the clinic and said that it showed I was a liar and have no integrity.

I wasn't aware there was some sort of "what happens on twitter - stays on twitter" rule. It seems like a very minor thing to attack someone's integrity over.

My interpretation is that Swart really wants to believe he is on the side of right.

By taking someone like me and painting me as someone who has low integrity, he reinforces in his mind the idea that the froome doubters are subhumans who spit on riders and cheat in twitter discussions etc. And don't even post under their own names. Puh. Untrustworthy this lot.

So he is right to defend poor Froome and Cound who no doubt have puppy eyes when they spend time with him and are so nice. From this unpleasant species that is the doubters. Does he know that Froome and Cound aren't the saints they make themselves out to be. That Froome has a history of cruelty to animals, that Cound abuses journalists, that Froome has proven in the past he won't bulk at stealing other people's information, hacking into their accounts, lying. That he's close friends with unrepentant dopers.

Maybe. But as we heard in the podcast, all their transgressions can be dismissed with a simple "yes I aknowledge they could have done some things better but I'm optimistic".

A doubter however, posts a conversation on an internet forum. My gawd there's a special wrung in hell for these people.

He can sleep easy because he's with the good guys.

 

[djpbaltimore]

Re:

It was pretty clear from even before the article in Esquire where Swarts allegiance lie, for instance that one time he twittered about conspiracy theorists or some such thing - a preemptive strike if you will. This allegiance doesn't have to be about money or prestige either, but simply about who your friends are.

Of course, having friends in certain circles or being a blabbermouth doesn't make you a bad collector of data, however, it may make you an unreliable interpreter of the same.

Yes, this much we can agree about. Dr. Swart's opinions on doping in the peloton are definitely worth dissecting. But as a scientist, I don't think his viewpoints on Froome influence his scientific credibility or his reporting of the data.

 

[LaFlorecita]

He says he has no opinion on whether Froome is clean, yet he insults those who dare question Froome. What? How does that work? His actions contradict his claims.

 

[Ventoux Boar]

From these recent interactions, Doc Swart appears to be an astute judge of character. I think he's perfectly justified in mounting a vigorous defence of his reputation in the face of relentless character assassination from respected Clinic regulars. Unlike these anonymous 'personalities' he does have a reputation to protect.

 

[rick james]

From these recent interactions, Doc Swart appears to be an astute judge of character. I think he's perfectly justified in mounting a vigorous defence of his reputation in the face of relentless character assassination from respected Clinic regulars. Unlike these anonymous 'personalities' he does have a reputation to protect.

where is the like button?

 

[djpbaltimore]

Re:

He says he has no opinion on whether Froome is clean, yet he insults those who dare question Froome. What? How does that work? His actions contradict his claims.

The two positions are not mutually exclusive as seen in this thread. His stance seems to be that he doesn't believe that the evidence is sufficient to prove that Froome is a doper. That does not make him 'clean' by default. Scientist's can have very strong opinions, but that does not mean that they influence his professional abilities pertaining to the 2015 testing.

 

[sniper]

Re:

He says he has no opinion on whether Froome is clean, yet he insults those who dare question Froome. What? How does that work? His actions contradict his claims.

In the podcast part II he also said there's "absolutely nothing on Sky".
Has he been living in a cave?

More evidence of him being either disconnected from the reality of doping, or rather compromised when speaking about it, can be found in this interesting doping case dating back to 2012:
http://sbeta.iol.co.za/the-star/evans-i-did-not-know-1419424

Jeroen Swart, a cycling coach, sports scientist and a member of the Doping Control Review Commission, said that George’s positive was proof that the system was working. When Nedbank tweeted a question asking if they should “pull the sponsorship of the whole team”, Swart replied: “Absolutely not. Punish the athlete, not the team.”

There was a sense that SAIDS had been targeting George for some time now. The rider has returned adverse samples before, and during his time with the South African-sponsored Barloworld team, was rested for two weeks after he was found to have a high hematocrit (volume of red blood cells) level of over the allowed limit of 50 percent. He never tested positive for EPO then, but questions were asked. Athletes are now required to record a blood sample which is kept in a “passport” against which subsequent blood samples can be measured.

“That’s the point of our [blood level] passport system,” said Swart. “Targeted testing based on probabilities of values being suspect. The more data points in the passport, the tighter the net becomes.”

couple of observations/questions there:
1. Swart having professional experience with the blood passport is something he hardly spoken about, as far as I can tell (do correct me if wrong). If not, why not?

2. So he has professional experience with a blooddoping Barloworld rider, yet puts his cred on the line to defend Froome. Again, why? And: he hasn't addressed the blooddoping Barloworld rider in any of the podcasts?

3. He's using one positive test as evidence (or better, as proof) that "the system is working". As a caveat, he's quoted indirectly there, but assuming that he did indeed say it, then you gotta wonder, how disconnected from the reality of doping in topsport can one be? It's public knowledge that only a small percentage gets caught. He's either disconnected, or awfully compromised for some reason.

 

[harryh]

From these recent interactions, Doc Swart appears to be an astute judge of character. I think he's perfectly justified in mounting a vigorous defence of his reputation in the face of relentless character assassination from respected Clinic regulars. Unlike these anonymous 'personalities' he does have a reputation to protect.

where is the like button?

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

He says he has no opinion on whether Froome is clean, yet he insults those who dare question Froome. What? How does that work? His actions contradict his claims.

The two positions are not mutually exclusive as seen in this thread. His stance seems to be that he doesn't believe that the evidence is sufficient to prove that Froome is a doper. That does not make him 'clean' by default. Scientist's can have very strong opinions, but that does not mean that they influence his professional abilities pertaining to the 2015 testing.

Sadly, there's this nagging issue of conflict, whether its actual or perceived its there.

The South African Augustyn, Swart and then Julich connection and that Swart was at this years Tour, perhaps Swart should have declined the offer to test? It appears rather odd that he was the one that was called up and accepted the offer. I don't doubt Swart did his job professionally but even with the slightest hint of conflict ones views can be compromised, even inadvertently.

What would have been expected is that these "conflicts' or relationships were declared up front. Maybe we'll see those in the full report come March 2016.

The more we dig deeper into the equation the more we see there are issues, holes, problems, compromises and odd faxes which simply don't look straight.

I'm holding my breath for the full report before making a final deduction on the whole matter. Its looking rather sordid at the moment though.

The heart rate issue is one I'm not entirely comfortable with but will accept Swart's explanation for the moment. i.e. Was Froome wearing a second heart rate strap as redundancy?

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

What would have been expected is this "conflicts' or relationships were declared up front. Maybe we'll see those in the full report come March 2016.

well said.
we've seen blunders (e.g. bmi), omissions (e.g. swart's previous links to Julich, a.o.) and contradictions (two different accounts of when they got the 2007 data).
That's the kind of stuff that makes the difference between science and pseudo-science.

 

[djpbaltimore]

Re: Re:

Sadly, there's this nagging issue of conflict, whether its actual or perceived its there.

The South African Augustyn, Swart and then Julich connection and that Swart was at this years Tour, perhaps Swart should have declined the offer to test? It appears rather odd that he was the one that was called up and accepted the offer. I don't doubt Swart did his job professionally but even with the slightest hint of conflict ones views can be compromised, even inadvertently.

What would have been expected is that these "conflicts' or relationships were declared up front. Maybe we'll see those in the full report come March 2016.

The more we dig deeper into the equation the more we see there are issues, holes, problems, compromises and odd faxes which simply don't look straight.

I'm holding my breath for the full report before making a final deduction on the whole matter. Its looking rather sordid at the moment though.

The heart rate issue is one I'm not entirely comfortable with but will accept Swart's explanation for the moment. i.e. Was Froome wearing a second heart rate strap as redundancy?

You forgot to add his links to Jan Ullrich.

I've stated this before but no journal bases its publishing decisions on 'perceived' conflicts of interest. COIs either exist or they don't and will be a footnote in the published article. I've also stated that you have not had access to any of the primary data that goes into the making of a journal article, so how can you honestly claim to know what looks 'odd' or 'sordid'.

For example, Ross Tucker would have an even greater perceived conflict of interest if he was involved with the testing. Of course, I would have no problem if that were the case because I respect his integrity to carry out the study under the ethical code of his profession.

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

edited after tdf86winner edited his post.
let's keep it civil.
thehog has kept it civil.
Some keep coming with adhoms rather than reflecting on the content provided by thehog and others.

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

Sadly, there's this nagging issue of conflict, whether its actual or perceived its there.

The South African Augustyn, Swart and then Julich connection and that Swart was at this years Tour, perhaps Swart should have declined the offer to test? It appears rather odd that he was the one that was called up and accepted the offer. I don't doubt Swart did his job professionally but even with the slightest hint of conflict ones views can be compromised, even inadvertently.

What would have been expected is that these "conflicts' or relationships were declared up front. Maybe we'll see those in the full report come March 2016.

The more we dig deeper into the equation the more we see there are issues, holes, problems, compromises and odd faxes which simply don't look straight.

I'm holding my breath for the full report before making a final deduction on the whole matter. Its looking rather sordid at the moment though.

The heart rate issue is one I'm not entirely comfortable with but will accept Swart's explanation for the moment. i.e. Was Froome wearing a second heart rate strap as redundancy?

You forgot to add his links to Jan Ullrich.

I've stated this before but no journal bases its publishing decisions on 'perceived' conflicts of interest. COIs either exist or they don't and will be a footnote in the published article. I've also stated that you have not had access to any of the primary data that goes into the making of a journal article, so how can you honestly claim to know what looks 'odd' or 'sordid'.

For example, Ross Tucker would have an even greater perceived conflict of interest if he was involved with the testing. Of course, I would have no problem if that were the case because I respect his integrity to carry out the study under the ethical code of his profession.

So lets go to Swart's statement on the loss of heart rate data from this Forum:

Case in point regarding the heart rate: I did notice that the heart rate signal had suddenly disappeared and pointed it out to the other scientists. This happened a few minutes before the end of the VO2max test. Other than trying to reposition the belt or try to remove the heart rate belt and replacing it with another one there is very little you can do in that situation. When a cyclist is riding at close to their maximum you cannot start tugging up their shirt and trying to pull off a belt from under their bibs to try and replace it. Your lack of insight and experience regarding this is clear but you are quick to provide scathing comment

All fair points from Dr. Swart. Yet when you see the picture of Froome, is he wearing two hear rate monitors? And he's not actually wearing any bibs, just regular cycling shorts - bibless.

That's a little more than an oversight, that's just changing the actual reality and truth.

 

[Jacques de Molay]

Re:

I've deleted the content.

I'm wasting my time here.

 

[djpbaltimore]

I don't know how relevant any one picture is to anything, but this does look like there are bibs and one heart rate monitor. Source is esquire article.

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

 

[thehog]

Re:

I don't know how relevant any one picture is to anything, but this does look like there are bibs and one heart rate monitor. Source is esquire article.

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

Good spot. Now its very old. Did he change shorts?

I also note he has a "ECG" patch on his heart itself. So he has a heart rate monitor (x2 ?) and an ECG patch to record heart rate? The video from the testing shows the ECG patch going on.

 

[djpbaltimore]

I have no theory about what the different outfits mean. I am not familiar with that kind of data collection setup.

 

[acoggan]

Re: Re:

I don't know how relevant any one picture is to anything, but this does look like there are bibs and one heart rate monitor. Source is esquire article.

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

Good spot. Now its very old. Did he change shorts?

I also note he has a "ECG" patch on his heart itself. So he has a heart rate monitor (x2 ?) and an ECG patch to record heart rate? The video from the testing shows the ECG patch going on.

That's not an ECG patch. It's a patch used to collect sweat for subsequent analysis to determine, e.g., Na+ concentration. (Recall that Froome also underwent testing to help him prepare for the heat and humidity of Rio.)