The Froome Files, test data only thread

[.Froomestrong.]

Re:

When is the full study due to be published?

Likely...never.

Its amazing to think that its been a year, and they simply cant get to doing this.

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

When is the full study due to be published?

Likely...never.

Its amazing to think that its been a year, and they simply cant get to doing this.

Surely its going to drop 2 days before the Tour... with it being 'proof' that Froome has done all he can to prove the doubters wrong. Cycling Weekly to confirm that the data from 2007 correlated 8 years later with testing is all the evidence required.

On a side note; I'm really hoping and maybe expecting too much but Swart and co. might use additional data in the intervening years along with further blood analysis. I hope not going to say it will happen, that might help. Even Coyle managed to pull that off!

 

[acoggan]

Re: Re:

When is the full study due to be published?

you can be sure it will be carefully released to coincide with some major story to deflect from it....

Froome and/or Team Sky have absolutely no control over the publication schedule of any scientific journal.

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

...
Froome and/or Team Sky have absolutely no control over the publication schedule of any scientific journal.

weirder things have happened.
it's not difficult to think of ways in which they (or Swart and his co-authors) might influence the timing of the publication.
(not saying it's happening in this case, mind.)

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

...
Froome and/or Team Sky have absolutely no control over the publication schedule of any scientific journal.

weirder things have happened.
it's not difficult to think of ways in which they (or Swart and his co-authors) might influence the timing of the publication.
(not saying it's happening in this case, mind.)

Well, Sky/Brailsford most certainly proved with the Heano study by the University of Sheffield they most certainly do have influence and control.

 

[acoggan]

Re: Re:

...
Froome and/or Team Sky have absolutely no control over the publication schedule of any scientific journal.

weirder things have happened.
it's not difficult to think of ways in which they (or Swart and his co-authors) might influence the timing of the publication.
(not saying it's happening in this case, mind.)

The only way anyone could influence the timing would be by delaying submission of the manuscript.

 

[acoggan]

Re: Re:

...
Froome and/or Team Sky have absolutely no control over the publication schedule of any scientific journal.

weirder things have happened.
it's not difficult to think of ways in which they (or Swart and his co-authors) might influence the timing of the publication.
(not saying it's happening in this case, mind.)

Well, Sky/Brailsford most certainly proved with the Heano study by the University of Sheffield they most certainly do have influence and control.

Evidence?

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

...
Froome and/or Team Sky have absolutely no control over the publication schedule of any scientific journal.

weirder things have happened.
it's not difficult to think of ways in which they (or Swart and his co-authors) might influence the timing of the publication.
(not saying it's happening in this case, mind.)

The only way anyone could influence the timing would be by delaying submission of the manuscript.

with all respect, that's just a lack of imagination.
it almost sounds as a lack of experience with peer review, but i know you have enough experience there.

 

[gillan1969]

Re: Re:

When is the full study due to be published?

you can be sure it will be carefully released to coincide with some major story to deflect from it....

Froome and/or Team Sky have absolutely no control over the publication schedule of any scientific journal.

that may be true

however, more importantly, they had full control over the subject (weight, timing of test, location of test etc etc etc)...indeed the whole test was at their behest...........

 

[gillan1969]

Re: Re:

All a higher cadence suggests is one is using a smaller gear at the same speed.
It does? that is quite the revelation

It actually means much more than a set speed at x revolutions per minute.

No, it doesn't. Cadence is no more or less than a measure of the rotational velocity of the cranks.

Each stroke for a given period of time carries a definitive level of power as all power over time is averaged rather than a total, hence why watts p/kg is used.

This is a meaningless statement.

Power is the rate of doing work. It can be measured as an instantaneous value, or as an average over any time frame you like.

Thus an average of 450w for a given minute compared to 5 minutes means that each revolution is of a differng power level to hold the 450w average - as to 450w for 20 minutes at 70rpm compared to 120rpm, each stroke has a in the cases holds a differing level of power.

Again, this is meaningless twaddle.

Cadence is very importance indicator of the ability to hold a specific power level of set periods of time.

No, it's not. At least not across quite a reasonable range. e.g. I've held same power at 125rpm in a pursuit as I have at 60rpm going up hill for about the same duration.

so if I go up 5kms of 10% @ 50rpm in a 53x17 in 10.00mins
and then
the same in a 39x23 @ 95rpm in 10.00mins

the power outputs should be the same?

Are the physiological inputs are the same?

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

...
Froome and/or Team Sky have absolutely no control over the publication schedule of any scientific journal.

weirder things have happened.
it's not difficult to think of ways in which they (or Swart and his co-authors) might influence the timing of the publication.
(not saying it's happening in this case, mind.)

Well, Sky/Brailsford most certainly proved with the Heano study by the University of Sheffield they most certainly do have influence and control.

Evidence?

June 25, 2015

In response to that Dr Eddie Hampton of Sheffield University has said that work is continuing and that the research paper is pending.

“The research around this case has been taken very seriously and we undertook a large amount of complex scientific analysis before giving our recommendation for Sergio to be allowed to return to racing,” he stated on Wednesday

April 22, 2016

Team Sky has reiterated that they are not responsible for publishing the medical report relating to Sergio Henao’s controversial blood profile, which could help explain abnormalities in his values that led the UCI to open an investigation into his Athlete Biological Passport values.

April 20, 2016

“The research around this case has been taken very seriously and we undertook a large amount of complex scientific analysis before giving our recommendation for Sergio to be allowed to return to racing,” he stated on June 24th.

“It’s still our intention to publish the results in the scientific literature. There are many processes to take into account when you write and publish scientific papers and delays of over a year are not unusual in these cases. We hope it can be done as soon as possible.”

April 22, 2016

“For me, and from seeing what’s out there, it’s gone past the initial review, the roundtable and the final report. This isn’t a typical situation though, given that it was the team, and the athlete that first approached the UCI with the independent report findings in 2014. What athlete does that?”

On the matter of the delay involving the report, Parisotto, who has had material on blood doping published, said: “I would be concerned that it took two years to publish. It’s unusual but I’m basing my comments on the 2005 paper that was specifically about Lance Armstrong’s physiology. It’s feasible that it could have been published by now if that was their intent. Two years is a concern. Maybe there wasn’t sufficient data to build a paper. There are a few unknowns.”

And then the University of Sheffield states..... report? Go ask Dave Brailsford :lol:

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

All a higher cadence suggests is one is using a smaller gear at the same speed.
It does? that is quite the revelation

It actually means much more than a set speed at x revolutions per minute.

No, it doesn't. Cadence is no more or less than a measure of the rotational velocity of the cranks.

Each stroke for a given period of time carries a definitive level of power as all power over time is averaged rather than a total, hence why watts p/kg is used.

This is a meaningless statement.

Power is the rate of doing work. It can be measured as an instantaneous value, or as an average over any time frame you like.

Thus an average of 450w for a given minute compared to 5 minutes means that each revolution is of a differng power level to hold the 450w average - as to 450w for 20 minutes at 70rpm compared to 120rpm, each stroke has a in the cases holds a differing level of power.

Again, this is meaningless twaddle.

Cadence is very importance indicator of the ability to hold a specific power level of set periods of time.

No, it's not. At least not across quite a reasonable range. e.g. I've held same power at 125rpm in a pursuit as I have at 60rpm going up hill for about the same duration.

so if I go up 5kms of 10% @ 50rpm in a 53x17 in 10.00mins
and then
the same in a 39x23 @ 95rpm in 10.00mins

the power outputs should be the same?

Are the physiological inputs are the same?

Correct, how does the physiological inputs and outputs differ with the heavier loading on the gearing whist going up hill after a stage of racing.

 

[acoggan]

Re: Re:

...
Froome and/or Team Sky have absolutely no control over the publication schedule of any scientific journal.

weirder things have happened.
it's not difficult to think of ways in which they (or Swart and his co-authors) might influence the timing of the publication.
(not saying it's happening in this case, mind.)

Well, Sky/Brailsford most certainly proved with the Heano study by the University of Sheffield they most certainly do have influence and control.

Evidence?

June 25, 2015

In response to that Dr Eddie Hampton of Sheffield University has said that work is continuing and that the research paper is pending.

“The research around this case has been taken very seriously and we undertook a large amount of complex scientific analysis before giving our recommendation for Sergio to be allowed to return to racing,” he stated on Wednesday

April 22, 2016

Team Sky has reiterated that they are not responsible for publishing the medical report relating to Sergio Henao’s controversial blood profile, which could help explain abnormalities in his values that led the UCI to open an investigation into his Athlete Biological Passport values.

April 20, 2016

“The research around this case has been taken very seriously and we undertook a large amount of complex scientific analysis before giving our recommendation for Sergio to be allowed to return to racing,” he stated on June 24th.

“It’s still our intention to publish the results in the scientific literature. There are many processes to take into account when you write and publish scientific papers and delays of over a year are not unusual in these cases. We hope it can be done as soon as possible.”

April 22, 2016

“For me, and from seeing what’s out there, it’s gone past the initial review, the roundtable and the final report. This isn’t a typical situation though, given that it was the team, and the athlete that first approached the UCI with the independent report findings in 2014. What athlete does that?”

On the matter of the delay involving the report, Parisotto, who has had material on blood doping published, said: “I would be concerned that it took two years to publish. It’s unusual but I’m basing my comments on the 2005 paper that was specifically about Lance Armstrong’s physiology. It’s feasible that it could have been published by now if that was their intent. Two years is a concern. Maybe there wasn’t sufficient data to build a paper. There are a few unknowns.”

And then the University of Sheffield states..... report? Go ask Dave Brailsford :lol:

I asked for evidence that Sky has somehow influenced the publication process. You haven't provided any.

 

[acoggan]

Re: Re:

...
Froome and/or Team Sky have absolutely no control over the publication schedule of any scientific journal.

weirder things have happened.
it's not difficult to think of ways in which they (or Swart and his co-authors) might influence the timing of the publication.
(not saying it's happening in this case, mind.)

The only way anyone could influence the timing would be by delaying submission of the manuscript.

with all respect, that's just a lack of imagination.
it almost sounds as a lack of experience with peer review, but i know you have enough experience there.

All sorts of black ops are imaginable. I live in the real world, though.

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

You did ask and I provided it.

But not completing the study with the test subject with the university engaged. Its there in plain text, the university then said "Ask Dave Brailsford".

So, yes, Sky influenced the publication process by beginning the study with the University and the stopping it (or dragging their heels), which every you prefer.

There will be no publication, I take it you are blaming the University of Sheffield for that error? That wouldn't be fair, no.

Team Sky has reiterated that they are not responsible for publishing the medical report relating to Sergio Henao’s controversial blood profile, which could help explain abnormalities in his values that led the UCI to open an investigation into his Athlete Biological Passport values.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/team-sky-were-not-responsible-for-publishing-henao-report/

The independent report was led by Dr Eddie Hampton but he was not available for comment when Cyclingnews contacted his office last week. When contacted this week, Hampton’s secretary would only say that contact should be made with Team Sky, rather than Hampton, and that he had nothing more to add on the matter.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/sergio-henaos-independent-blood-profile-review-remains-unpublished/

Who to believe? The team which releases deliberately false power data at the Tour? or the University of Sheffield?

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

...
Froome and/or Team Sky have absolutely no control over the publication schedule of any scientific journal.

weirder things have happened.
it's not difficult to think of ways in which they (or Swart and his co-authors) might influence the timing of the publication.
(not saying it's happening in this case, mind.)

The only way anyone could influence the timing would be by delaying submission of the manuscript.

with all respect, that's just a lack of imagination.
it almost sounds as a lack of experience with peer review, but i know you have enough experience there.

All sorts of black ops are imaginable. I live in the real world, though.

And in the real world doping is the choice of pro cyclists. This has been seen time and time and time and time again! The culture to dope has not changed a jot in the history of the sport.

 

[Ricco']

Re: Re:

You did ask and I provided it.

But not completing the study with the test subject with the university engaged. Its there in plain text, the university then said "Ask Dave Brailsford".

So, yes, Sky influenced the publication process by beginning the study with the University and the stopping it (or dragging their heels), which every you prefer.

There will be no publication, I take it you are blaming the University of Sheffield for that error? That wouldn't be fair, no.

Team Sky has reiterated that they are not responsible for publishing the medical report relating to Sergio Henao’s controversial blood profile, which could help explain abnormalities in his values that led the UCI to open an investigation into his Athlete Biological Passport values.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/team-sky-were-not-responsible-for-publishing-henao-report/

The independent report was led by Dr Eddie Hampton but he was not available for comment when Cyclingnews contacted his office last week. When contacted this week, Hampton’s secretary would only say that contact should be made with Team Sky, rather than Hampton, and that he had nothing more to add on the matter.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/sergio-henaos-independent-blood-profile-review-remains-unpublished/

Who to believe? The team which releases deliberately false power data at the Tour? or the University of Sheffield?

Do you even think that the Dr. Eddie Hampton's personnel, in the middle of an open case by the world cycling federation and the subject they are analyzing (on request of the team) didn't want to say nothing to the public that could compromise the investigation?

If I was in the middle of a thing like this, being an academic without usual connections with the sports and how they conduct their investigations, I would send any questions to the parts directly involved in the case, not taking the risk of saying something inappropriate to the public at the time of the interview.

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

You did ask and I provided it.

But not completing the study with the test subject with the university engaged. Its there in plain text, the university then said "Ask Dave Brailsford".

So, yes, Sky influenced the publication process by beginning the study with the University and the stopping it (or dragging their heels), which every you prefer.

There will be no publication, I take it you are blaming the University of Sheffield for that error? That wouldn't be fair, no.

Team Sky has reiterated that they are not responsible for publishing the medical report relating to Sergio Henao’s controversial blood profile, which could help explain abnormalities in his values that led the UCI to open an investigation into his Athlete Biological Passport values.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/team-sky-were-not-responsible-for-publishing-henao-report/

The independent report was led by Dr Eddie Hampton but he was not available for comment when Cyclingnews contacted his office last week. When contacted this week, Hampton’s secretary would only say that contact should be made with Team Sky, rather than Hampton, and that he had nothing more to add on the matter.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/sergio-henaos-independent-blood-profile-review-remains-unpublished/

Who to believe? The team which releases deliberately false power data at the Tour? or the University of Sheffield?

Do you even think that the Dr. Eddie Hampton's personnel, in the middle of an open case by the world cycling federation and the subject they are analyzing (on request of the team) didn't want to say nothing to the public that could compromise the investigation?

If I was in the middle of a thing like this, being an academic without usual connections with the sports and how they conduct their investigations, I would send any questions to the parts directly involved in the case, not taking the risk of saying something inappropriate to the public at the time of the interview.

Sky have gone from telling everyone about the report and that its still coming to "nothing to do with us". UoS has gone from working on the analysis to "no comment, talk to Sky".

Its clear they have been influenced. There is no report coming, Sky held the keys, they need to test Heano in Columbia and the Columbian Federation were apparently assisting. Who was paying for this study? The travel to Columbia? Sky?

Its clear the report has been pulled because Sky pulled the resource and most likely the money.

 

[Ricco']

Re: Re:

You did ask and I provided it.

But not completing the study with the test subject with the university engaged. Its there in plain text, the university then said "Ask Dave Brailsford".

So, yes, Sky influenced the publication process by beginning the study with the University and the stopping it (or dragging their heels), which every you prefer.

There will be no publication, I take it you are blaming the University of Sheffield for that error? That wouldn't be fair, no.

Team Sky has reiterated that they are not responsible for publishing the medical report relating to Sergio Henao’s controversial blood profile, which could help explain abnormalities in his values that led the UCI to open an investigation into his Athlete Biological Passport values.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/team-sky-were-not-responsible-for-publishing-henao-report/

The independent report was led by Dr Eddie Hampton but he was not available for comment when Cyclingnews contacted his office last week. When contacted this week, Hampton’s secretary would only say that contact should be made with Team Sky, rather than Hampton, and that he had nothing more to add on the matter.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/sergio-henaos-independent-blood-profile-review-remains-unpublished/

Who to believe? The team which releases deliberately false power data at the Tour? or the University of Sheffield?

Do you even think that the Dr. Eddie Hampton's personnel, in the middle of an open case by the world cycling federation and the subject they are analyzing (on request of the team) didn't want to say nothing to the public that could compromise the investigation?

If I was in the middle of a thing like this, being an academic without usual connections with the sports and how they conduct their investigations, I would send any questions to the parts directly involved in the case, not taking the risk of saying something inappropriate to the public at the time of the interview.

Sky have gone from telling everyone about the report and that its still coming to "nothing to do with us". UoS has gone from working on the analysis to "no comment, talk to Sky".

Its clear they have been influenced. There is no report coming, Sky held the keys, they need to test Heano in Columbia and the Columbian Federation were apparently assisting. Who was paying for this study? The travel to Columbia? Sky?

Its clear the report has been pulled because Sky pulled the resource and most likely the money.

I'm not arguing that with you, you can be totally right.

I'm just saying that if a journalist, one week after the beginning of an investigation to a subject of an academic team, arrives to that team (not directly responsible for the athlete) with questions, it's likely that they don't want to be responsibles for some leak of information and send the journo directly to the team of the athlete, which is responsible for him and his accountable for what it's said about the case.

I wouldn't want to say too much to the public and jeopardize the case I study and the organization that asked for the study.

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

You did ask and I provided it.

But not completing the study with the test subject with the university engaged. Its there in plain text, the university then said "Ask Dave Brailsford".

So, yes, Sky influenced the publication process by beginning the study with the University and the stopping it (or dragging their heels), which every you prefer.

There will be no publication, I take it you are blaming the University of Sheffield for that error? That wouldn't be fair, no.

Team Sky has reiterated that they are not responsible for publishing the medical report relating to Sergio Henao’s controversial blood profile, which could help explain abnormalities in his values that led the UCI to open an investigation into his Athlete Biological Passport values.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/team-sky-were-not-responsible-for-publishing-henao-report/

The independent report was led by Dr Eddie Hampton but he was not available for comment when Cyclingnews contacted his office last week. When contacted this week, Hampton’s secretary would only say that contact should be made with Team Sky, rather than Hampton, and that he had nothing more to add on the matter.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/sergio-henaos-independent-blood-profile-review-remains-unpublished/

Who to believe? The team which releases deliberately false power data at the Tour? or the University of Sheffield?

Do you even think that the Dr. Eddie Hampton's personnel, in the middle of an open case by the world cycling federation and the subject they are analyzing (on request of the team) didn't want to say nothing to the public that could compromise the investigation?

If I was in the middle of a thing like this, being an academic without usual connections with the sports and how they conduct their investigations, I would send any questions to the parts directly involved in the case, not taking the risk of saying something inappropriate to the public at the time of the interview.

Sky have gone from telling everyone about the report and that its still coming to "nothing to do with us". UoS has gone from working on the analysis to "no comment, talk to Sky".

Its clear they have been influenced. There is no report coming, Sky held the keys, they need to test Heano in Columbia and the Columbian Federation were apparently assisting. Who was paying for this study? The travel to Columbia? Sky?

Its clear the report has been pulled because Sky pulled the resource and most likely the money.

I'm not arguing that with you, you can be totally right.

I'm just saying that if a journalist, one week after the beginning of an investigation to a subject of an academic team, arrives to that team (not directly responsible for the athlete) with questions, it's likely that they don't want to be responsible for some leak of information and send the journo directly to the team of the athlete, which is responsible for him and his accountable for what it's said about the case.

I wouldn't want to say too much to the public and jeopardize the case I study and the organization that asked for the study.

But it wasn't one week, it was two years in, UoS is pointing at Sky and Sky are now pointing back at UoS.

April 27, 2016

 

[Ricco']

Re: Re:

But it wasn't one week, it was two years in, UoS is pointing at Sky and Sky are now pointing back at UoS.

April 27, 2016

Sky pulled Henao from racing on April 20, 2016. I assume that the UCI investigation of his values already had started, with the data provided by Sky and UoS(?). The questions were asked in the following week, when the investigation was in full swing and maybe UoS didn't want to let go information sensible to the case without the autorization of Team Sky and/or UCI.

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

But it wasn't one week, it was two years in, UoS is pointing at Sky and Sky are now pointing back at UoS.

April 27, 2016

Sky pulled Henao from racing on April 20, 2016. I assume that the UCI investigation of his values already had started, with the data provided by Sky and UoS(?). The questions were asked in the following week, when the investigation was in full swing and maybe UoS didn't want to let go information sensible to the case without the autorization of Team Sky and/or UCI.

No Sky originally pulled Henao from racing back in 2014 and that's when Sky commissioned the UoS.

19 March 2014

Team Sky have withdrawn Colombian rider Sergio Henao from racing after out-of-competition blood test results raised questions.

The tests were carried out at altitude and Sky want to find out if that had any bearing on the blood values of a rider born 2,125m above sea level.

Henao, 26, will undergo further tests in an "altitude research programme".

"It's important not to jump to conclusions," said Team Sky principal Sir Dave Brailsford.

"We want to do the right thing and we want to be fair. We need to understand these readings better

http://www.bbc.com/sport/cycling/26645900

 

[Ricco']

I know that, I followed the Henao case from the beginning since he was at the time (and still is) a member of a fantasy team that I have on another forum (and I admit I'm a little biased with his performances, but not in this discussion ).

I'm just saying that with a reopening of the case, maybe the University didn't want to say too much to the public (and then send the journo to the athlete's team, who should know what they could say about the development of the case since they were in a direct contact with the anti-doping regulators regarding the case).

I think it's a case of "I don't want to say nothing I'm not allowed to, speak to the team".

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Re: Re:

so if I go up 5kms of 10% @ 50rpm in a 53x17 in 10.00mins
and then
the same in a 39x23 @ 95rpm in 10.00mins

the power outputs should be the same?

Ceteris paribus, yes.

Are the physiological inputs are the same?

Metabolically, yes. There may be a minor difference in gross efficiency which means very slight differences in metabolic demand but essentially the same ATP demand exists and will be supplied by the same aerobic energy systems (for a 10-min maximal effort >90% aerobic, and 100% aerobic if it's sub-threshold). It's this aerobic energy supply reason why we are capable of same/very similar power outputs over a wide range of cadences. Naturally our power output capabilities don't hold for all cadences, e.g. 20rpm or 200rpm.

There is a neuromuscular difference which can be shown with a quadrant analysis of average effective pedal force v circumferential pedal velocity, however given both efforts are on the same (near threshold) hyperbolic on such a plot, then the metabolic impact isn't particularly significant. IOW the 50rpm effort is still quite a low force effort, or put another way, endurance cycling is an aerobic sport.

 

[acoggan]

Re: Re:

You did ask and I provided it.

No, you did not. As others have pointed, there could be any number of reasons why Hampton has referred any questions back to Team Sky. Only those who wear tinfoil hats and see dead people would assume something nefarious is going on.