The Froome Files, test data only thread

[Jeroen Swart]

Good updates, thanks JS.

The 2007 data was always a problem for me and many others here, those faxes looked awfully dubious but you may have seen the data in raw format.

Sticking to the test data at hand was the better shot, it's reliable and collected under the same conditions. Not sure what conclusions that will be drawn but we can wait and see.

The 'He just lost fat, the engine was always there' statement is now etched in stone, is that something still stand by? Or do you have differing opinions on the reasoning behind the rise of Froome?

I haven't seen the raw data from 2007. However, we have been in contact with the scientists and they are highly respected. I therefore don't have any reason to doubt it's integrity.

Regarding the quote: Please remember that that piece was written for a lay publication which is meant to entertain. It is not a scientific manuscript. So you have to take that comment in it's context. To be honest I can't recall my exact words but I'm sure Richard wouldn't have misquoted me. Richard Moore interviewed me at the end of the day and it covered a lot of points over an interview which lasted a half hour or thereabouts. So it wasn't a one liner.

But to address that point specifically: The 2007 data show that he DID have a very big engine (on par with his current one) and he WAS fat (16.9% BF is absurdly high for someone aiming to perform at that level). So losing that fat and some lean muscle mass as well (otherwise it doesn't equate) would have been a significant factor in his performance improvement. There are probably a multitude of other factors and sometimes these may not even be possible to identify objectively. However, you can't dismiss that an 8kg weight loss for the same power isn't a massive or even overriding factor in his performance improvement. It would have have significant effects on his TT performances as well, not just his climbing.

Thanks JS. I have no doubt those from Lausanne are highly respected, however sans the raw data or something more than the fax (the two versions) we saw its hard to legitimise the data contained within. It was a long time ago, memories become sketchy so it’s hard to believe that data could be used for anything other than water cooler chat. The BMI value is worrying which leads to all sorts of questions. I would agree that the fat per 2007 value is 'absurdly high', Froome from photographs at the time doesn’t look to be carrying that type of weight, although visual guesstimates on fat % is not reliable but he certainly doesn't look like anything in the 17% range.

I agree on your quote that there was an entertainment factor to the testing and so there should be, this shouldn’t be all serious and about publishing in scientific journals then none of this data would get into the mainstream market for greater understanding. I don’t think Moore did your work justice though, I sensed that he was looking for the “missing link” in the Froome story and when Michelle came along with the “missing fax” all the dots joined together, it was a little too Nicolas Sparks-esque for my liking.

I don’t disagree with the principles with weight loss and improved performance, in this case the 8kg weight wasn’t lost between August and September 2011 but it was gradual through Barloworld, then to early Sky days and then “transformation”. That doesn’t correlate at all in the immense improvement and gains made in that short period in 2011.

Thanks again and look forward to the final report.

Yes. I agree. There are some pictures where he looks lean. There are others from then and even from his time at Sky where he looks positively chubby. It may be that his weight fluctuated dramatically. I can't say for sure. Dramatic weight fluctuations will also adversely affect performance.

As to the other factors and the time frame: I can't give any insight. Bilharzia, tactics, weight loss, self belief. There are lots of possibilities. None of which are easy to prove or disprove. The same applies for performance enhancing substances.

Hopefully methods to detect prohibited substances will improve significantly. I readily admit that it is not easy to catch the cheats. Storing samples as they are doing now will add a lot of value. Albeit that we will have to wait a good while to confirm the results; or in your case, the suspicions.

Lets wait and see.

I sense the 2007 data didn’t stand up to the robustness of a peer-reviewed journal hence wasn’t included or that it couldn’t be verified/qualified as valid. Whilst those in Lausanne might have good reputations it appears even they weren’t willing to release that data; all of which gives rise that the 2007 outputs are best kept on the scratchy looking fax presented to Moore (by the subjects spouse no less).

I appreciate that you’ve been up front with respect to that data but if I cast my mind back to the time of the testing, the 2007 was the key aspect that linked in the 2015 data and showed that Froome always had this “big engine” – all we are left with now is a set of 2015 data of which has been fairly much verified by his extraordinary race performance and nothing else.

In terms of doping; I think what we have seen recently with UKAD, WADA, IAAF along with the lack of transparency from the UCI on doping suspensions and moto-fraud to know that testing etc. is woefully out of step with current doping technology & application thereof. We are no further on than 1998 to that respect.

No. I must give them credit in that they were actually keen to share the 2007 data and to publish it with us.

We made a decision to not publish it based on the already lengthy manuscript, the fact that we didn't collect the data ourselves and therefore couldn't attest to the robustness of the methods and QC's and that differing methodologies and equipment would have confounded direct comparisons (as per the criticisms of the Coyle paper). So it was our decision and not theirs.

As per your second point. There is very good evidence that the biological passport has dramatically curtailed doping. However, there is still "wiggling room". But instead of capping it at a HCT of 50, it is now a much tighter control. In addition, there is always a risk for athletes that dope that they will get caught. They now take a risk no matter what they use. However, the risk reward ratio still needs to be increased otherwise some will still take the risk as they consider it acceptable. The 4 year penalty is a step in the right direction but I think lifetime bans for EPO, anabolics and similar for a first offence would be a good starting point.

 

[gillan1969]

Jeroen

If they were keen to share the data why have you not seen it?

cheers

 

[sniper]

I think one big problem with antidoping is individuals 'playing' both sides, i.e. working with athletes as well as for antidoping agencies.
Not recognizing that conflict of interest means inviting further fraud, corruption and cheating.

@jeroenswart:
1. what's your view on the disconnection between Froome's BMI and his weight on the 2007 data sheet?
2. Have you seen the original 2007 data or just the fax?

 

[Jeroen Swart]

Good updates, thanks JS.

The 2007 data was always a problem for me and many others here, those faxes looked awfully dubious but you may have seen the data in raw format.

Sticking to the test data at hand was the better shot, it's reliable and collected under the same conditions. Not sure what conclusions that will be drawn but we can wait and see.

The 'He just lost fat, the engine was always there' statement is now etched in stone, is that something still stand by? Or do you have differing opinions on the reasoning behind the rise of Froome?

I haven't seen the raw data from 2007. However, we have been in contact with the scientists and they are highly respected. I therefore don't have any reason to doubt it's integrity.

Regarding the quote: Please remember that that piece was written for a lay publication which is meant to entertain. It is not a scientific manuscript. So you have to take that comment in it's context. To be honest I can't recall my exact words but I'm sure Richard wouldn't have misquoted me. Richard Moore interviewed me at the end of the day and it covered a lot of points over an interview which lasted a half hour or thereabouts. So it wasn't a one liner.

But to address that point specifically: The 2007 data show that he DID have a very big engine (on par with his current one) and he WAS fat (16.9% BF is absurdly high for someone aiming to perform at that level). So losing that fat and some lean muscle mass as well (otherwise it doesn't equate) would have been a significant factor in his performance improvement. There are probably a multitude of other factors and sometimes these may not even be possible to identify objectively. However, you can't dismiss that an 8kg weight loss for the same power isn't a massive or even overriding factor in his performance improvement. It would have have significant effects on his TT performances as well, not just his climbing.

Jeroen


Whilst not having seen the raw data, can you confirm the status of the 2007 data? You refer to 'scientists' having collected it? Do you know the purpose of its collection? I can imagine the UCI requiring some physiological testing (unlike sky obviously ) in order to help prepare training programs etc however, and it may be semantics, but would the guys doing it not just be exercise physiologists doing their day-job (so to speak)? rather than, say, scientists under taking research?

Also is the only data we have on weight the fax, if you've not seen the raw data?

Also, and outwith your remit...surely the mystery must remain that with such an 'absurdly' high body fat (despite some photos on here indicating otherwise) surely somebody at the UCI/Barloworld/Sky must have said..."steady Chris, lose the fat and you'll win the Tour"?

cheers

I cannot answer any of those questions as I don't have specifics. When I refer to scientists, I refer to the fact that they well published and active in science. I assume the purpose of the test at the time was as a baseline for the UCI development squad. In which case they were acting as exercise physiologists. But as you point out. It is semantics.

As to why nobody got on top of the weight? I don't have any details as to what transpired. Surely the same could have been said for UIrich and many others. In my experience, many of the top teams were not at all invested in science. They would pay the riders lots of money and tell them to make sure they were in shape. Telekom being a prime example. Some still do these days but most of the teams have become much more invested in the science.

You keep referring to Telekom - that's one team.

USP weren't like this. Rabobank weren't like this, ONCE weren't. CSC...Ullrich was certainly treated like a spoilt child but some of that was down to doping in winter months...I look forward to your other examples.

Digger, can you try to stop taking exception with everything I say just for the sake of it?

I know you hate Sky. I know you think it's all a conspiracy and that's why you need to blast me too. But if you want me to engage on any points you make, then make some valid points and don't just object for the sake of objecting.

Are you asking for more examples of cyclists with weight issues? Throw a rock. You will hit one.

Are you asking about using science?

Rabobank were anything but scientific.

You can take any Dutch, Belgian, Italian, Russian and Spanish team (Once included). None used any science in that era. They all stuck rigidly to traditional methods. I put the onus on you to show otherwise.

The inclusion of science started with the Anglo Saxon teams. Garmin, USPS etc. It spread from there.

 

[sniper]

Sports science became a big issue in cycling already in the 70s.
Even more so in the 80s.

 

[Jeroen Swart]

Jeroen

If they were keen to share the data why have you not seen it?

cheers

As per my previous comment. They did reach out. We decided not to publish it and requested that they publish it separately.

At that point we had no subsequent rights to access the data.

One of the scientists from the 2007 data is Prof Grégoire Millet. He is on twitter and I'm sure he would respond to any technical questions regarding the data in the fax.

However, I can't answer any specific questions other than to say I have no doubts about it's legitimacy.

 

[thehog]

[quote="Jeroen Swart[/url

The 2007 data was always a problem for me and many others here, those faxes looked awfully dubious but you may have seen the data in raw format.

Sticking to the test data at hand was the better shot, it's reliable and collected under the same conditions. Not sure what conclusions that will be drawn but we can wait and see.

The 'He just lost fat, the engine was always there' statement is now etched in stone, is that something still stand by? Or do you have differing opinions on the reasoning behind the rise of Froome?

I haven't seen the raw data from 2007. However, we have been in contact with the scientists and they are highly respected. I therefore don't have any reason to doubt it's integrity.

Regarding the quote: Please remember that that piece was written for a lay publication which is meant to entertain. It is not a scientific manuscript. So you have to take that comment in it's context. To be honest I can't recall my exact words but I'm sure Richard wouldn't have misquoted me. Richard Moore interviewed me at the end of the day and it covered a lot of points over an interview which lasted a half hour or thereabouts. So it wasn't a one liner.

But to address that point specifically: The 2007 data show that he DID have a very big engine (on par with his current one) and he WAS fat (16.9% BF is absurdly high for someone aiming to perform at that level). So losing that fat and some lean muscle mass as well (otherwise it doesn't equate) would have been a significant factor in his performance improvement. There are probably a multitude of other factors and sometimes these may not even be possible to identify objectively. However, you can't dismiss that an 8kg weight loss for the same power isn't a massive or even overriding factor in his performance improvement. It would have have significant effects on his TT performances as well, not just his climbing.

Thanks JS. I have no doubt those from Lausanne are highly respected, however sans the raw data or something more than the fax (the two versions) we saw its hard to legitimise the data contained within. It was a long time ago, memories become sketchy so it’s hard to believe that data could be used for anything other than water cooler chat. The BMI value is worrying which leads to all sorts of questions. I would agree that the fat per 2007 value is 'absurdly high', Froome from photographs at the time doesn’t look to be carrying that type of weight, although visual guesstimates on fat % is not reliable but he certainly doesn't look like anything in the 17% range.

I agree on your quote that there was an entertainment factor to the testing and so there should be, this shouldn’t be all serious and about publishing in scientific journals then none of this data would get into the mainstream market for greater understanding. I don’t think Moore did your work justice though, I sensed that he was looking for the “missing link” in the Froome story and when Michelle came along with the “missing fax” all the dots joined together, it was a little too Nicolas Sparks-esque for my liking.

I don’t disagree with the principles with weight loss and improved performance, in this case the 8kg weight wasn’t lost between August and September 2011 but it was gradual through Barloworld, then to early Sky days and then “transformation”. That doesn’t correlate at all in the immense improvement and gains made in that short period in 2011.

Thanks again and look forward to the final report.

Yes. I agree. There are some pictures where he looks lean. There are others from then and even from his time at Sky where he looks positively chubby. It may be that his weight fluctuated dramatically. I can't say for sure. Dramatic weight fluctuations will also adversely affect performance.

As to the other factors and the time frame: I can't give any insight. Bilharzia, tactics, weight loss, self belief. There are lots of possibilities. None of which are easy to prove or disprove. The same applies for performance enhancing substances.

Hopefully methods to detect prohibited substances will improve significantly. I readily admit that it is not easy to catch the cheats. Storing samples as they are doing now will add a lot of value. Albeit that we will have to wait a good while to confirm the results; or in your case, the suspicions.

Lets wait and see.

I sense the 2007 data didn’t stand up to the robustness of a peer-reviewed journal hence wasn’t included or that it couldn’t be verified/qualified as valid. Whilst those in Lausanne might have good reputations it appears even they weren’t willing to release that data; all of which gives rise that the 2007 outputs are best kept on the scratchy looking fax presented to Moore (by the subjects spouse no less).

I appreciate that you’ve been up front with respect to that data but if I cast my mind back to the time of the testing, the 2007 was the key aspect that linked in the 2015 data and showed that Froome always had this “big engine” – all we are left with now is a set of 2015 data of which has been fairly much verified by his extraordinary race performance and nothing else.

In terms of doping; I think what we have seen recently with UKAD, WADA, IAAF along with the lack of transparency from the UCI on doping suspensions and moto-fraud to know that testing etc. is woefully out of step with current doping technology & application thereof. We are no further on than 1998 to that respect.[/quote]

No. I must give them credit in that they were actually keen to share the 2007 data and to publish it with us.

We made a decision to not publish it based on the already lengthy manuscript, the fact that we didn't collect the data ourselves and therefore couldn't attest to the robustness of the methods and QC's and that differing methodologies and equipment would have confounded direct comparisons (as per the criticisms of the Coyle paper). So it was our decision and not theirs.

As per your second point. There is very good evidence that the biological passport has dramatically curtailed doping. However, there is still "wiggling room". But instead of capping it at a HCT of 50, it is now a much tighter control. In addition, there is always a risk for athletes that dope that they will get caught. They now take a risk no matter what they use. However, the risk reward ratio still needs to be increased otherwise some will still take the risk as they consider it acceptable. The 4 year penalty is a step in the right direction but I think lifetime bans for EPO, anabolics and similar for a first offence would be a good starting point.

Agree on first point, the data is not solid but like you say this was your decisions rather than one of not willing to share. I would add that I’m unsure why you wouldn’t’ want to see the raw data out of curiosity sake but they may come down to time.

Per the second point we diverge here. I don’t see that the passport has ‘dramatically curtailed doping’, I sense that all it has done is modify the manner in which doping is conducted. Reference to the EPO test when introduced, Ferrari simply recommended micro-dosing. Dan Stevens in the UK was using EPO and procured from a local doctor and could have it cleared down by morning. JTL was most likely using EPO except in the Tour of Britain they weren’t testing for EPO. Back to the passport with the altitude training trending with all teams moving up and down from altitude it does skew off the passport to allow for more “wiggle room” and those teams/riders with budgets can spend the time to “wiggle”.

I agree the 4 year penalty is a strong deterrent as it can end a career, however as we’ve seen recently with the Yates case, Impey and to a degree with Rogers, the UCI is more than willing to find ways to manoeuvre around their own rules that riders know there’s a way out, most of all some of these cases we never get to hear about as its all dealt internally to the CADF.

 

[thehog]

Re:

Sports science became a big issue in cycling already in the 70s.
Even more so in the 80s.

Per Telekom they were actually on the cutting edge of Sports Science. They had the University of Freiburg from 1993 to 2006 at their disposal, which not only included medical doctors but sports scientists.

Ullrich had his own problems but the team itself was way ahead of many at the time.

 

[Jeroen Swart]

Re:

I think one big problem with antidoping is individuals 'playing' both sides, i.e. working with athletes as well as for antidoping agencies.
Not recognizing that conflict of interest means inviting further fraud, corruption and cheating.

@jeroenswart:
1. what's your view on the disconnection between Froome's BMI and his weight on the 2007 data sheet?
2. Have you seen the original 2007 data or just the fax?

Sniper, are you just here to troll or do you want a proper conversation? Please be specific about your first comment. Is that an accusation? If so, be specific about what you mean. Or are you just sitting on the fence so that you can look like you have some insight without actually making a point that can be contested? Poor show as usual.

As per your comments:

1) They clearly didn't report to a decimal place. Yes, they should have rounded up if they left off the decimal. It's BMI. Nobody in performance sport uses BMI. It has almost no value. But ask Grégoire Millet why it was reported the way it was. I don't see this as a serious issue.
2) Already answered.

 

[thehog]

Jeroen

If they were keen to share the data why have you not seen it?

cheers

As per my previous comment. They did reach out. We decided not to publish it and requested that they publish it separately.

At that point we had no subsequent rights to access the data.

One of the scientists from the 2007 data is Prof Grégoire Millet. He is on twitter and I'm sure he would respond to any technical questions regarding the data in the fax.

However, I can't answer any specific questions other than to say I have no doubts about it's legitimacy.

Grégoire P. Millet, worked a lot with Frédéric Grappe who also studied the Froome data during the 2013 Tour de France.

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

Sports science became a big issue in cycling already in the 70s.
Even more so in the 80s.

Per Telekom they were actually on the cutting edge of Sports Science. They had the University of Freiburg from 1993 to 2006 at their disposal, which not only included medical doctors but sports scientists.

Ullrich had his own problems but the team itself was way ahead of many at the time.

Indeed that was cutting edge, as was (is) the Mapei Center.
It's not clear to me in what area Sky have furthered (let alone revolutionized) the science of cycling. Maybe Jeroen can expand after diner?

 

[thehog]

I don't get why they are so many snarky comments on Swart. He was commissioned to run a battery of tests and print the output firstly in a magazine then in a scientific journal. Some appear to holding him responsible for everything Sky do and that he is aware of a team wide systematic doping and using these tests to cover that fact.

This thread is to discuss the test data, why spoil it with rhetoric? They can go in the Sky thread general.

Today we learn there is no 2007 data in the study; that we did not know before which largely discounts the "he just lost the fat" hypnosis.

Let's stick to the facts.

 

[Freddythefrog]

Good updates, thanks JS.

The 2007 data was always a problem for me and many others here, those faxes looked awfully dubious but you may have seen the data in raw format.

..............

I haven't seen the raw data from 2007. ..............

...................... he WAS fat (16.9% BF is absurdly high for someone aiming to perform at that level). ............

First time I saw the data I was very puzzled about that figure for fat. I am glad you agree it is absurdly fat. I have seen lots of test data for athletes and never seen a figure that high before. However maybe fat people just don't come my way. Perhaps you would be so good as to share some pictures of an elite cyclist you have tested who has this level of body fat on them. I am sure we would all like to get the idea of what Chris Froome would have been looking like, if he was tested and produced data like this.

 

[thehog]

Good updates, thanks JS.

The 2007 data was always a problem for me and many others here, those faxes looked awfully dubious but you may have seen the data in raw format.

..............

I haven't seen the raw data from 2007. ..............

...................... he WAS fat (16.9% BF is absurdly high for someone aiming to perform at that level). ............

First time I saw the data I was very puzzled about that figure for fat. I am glad you agree it is absurdly fat. I have seen lots of test data for athletes and never seen a figure that high before. However maybe fat people just don't come my way. Perhaps you would be so good as to share some pictures of an elite cyclist you have tested who has this level of body fat on them. I am sure we would all like to get the idea of what Chris Froome would have been looking like, if he was tested and produced data like this.

Perhaps why the 2007 data was dropped because the figure doesn't correlate with images and statements made by Froome at the time?

 

[gillan1969]

if there is data (inc weight) that sits behind the 'lost and found' fax then it is rather telling that it appears not to have been seen by anybody...if Jeroen has not seen it then I doubt anyone else has...

Why wouldn't you just mail the file over?

At the moment we have a fax (once was lost now is found) telling us Froome was fat and lots of other evidence telling us he wasn't..

those are issues Mr Moore and those responsible for the fax should address...

 

[gillan1969]

Good updates, thanks JS.

The 2007 data was always a problem for me and many others here, those faxes looked awfully dubious but you may have seen the data in raw format.

..............

I haven't seen the raw data from 2007. ..............

...................... he WAS fat (16.9% BF is absurdly high for someone aiming to perform at that level). ............

First time I saw the data I was very puzzled about that figure for fat. I am glad you agree it is absurdly fat. I have seen lots of test data for athletes and never seen a figure that high before. However maybe fat people just don't come my way. Perhaps you would be so good as to share some pictures of an elite cyclist you have tested who has this level of body fat on them. I am sure we would all like to get the idea of what Chris Froome would have been looking like, if he was tested and produced data like this.

Perhaps why the 2007 data was dropped because the figure doesn't correlate with images and statements made by Froome at the time?

mid-season as well...after some stage races

 

[Irondan]

Let's stick with positive discussion rather than beating dead horses please.

@Jeoron, there's no need to leave. Moderation in this thread will be tight. Please carry on....

 

[thehog]

Good updates, thanks JS.

The 2007 data was always a problem for me and many others here, those faxes looked awfully dubious but you may have seen the data in raw format.

..............

I haven't seen the raw data from 2007. ..............

...................... he WAS fat (16.9% BF is absurdly high for someone aiming to perform at that level). ............

First time I saw the data I was very puzzled about that figure for fat. I am glad you agree it is absurdly fat. I have seen lots of test data for athletes and never seen a figure that high before. However maybe fat people just don't come my way. Perhaps you would be so good as to share some pictures of an elite cyclist you have tested who has this level of body fat on them. I am sure we would all like to get the idea of what Chris Froome would have been looking like, if he was tested and produced data like this.

Perhaps why the 2007 data was dropped because the figure doesn't correlate with images and statements made by Froome at the time?

mid-season as well...after some stage races

Yes the 2007 test was just after a self made attitude camp and then his good efforts in the heat of Japan, he should no way registered 17% body fat, if he did so whilst racing and training as hard as his book suggest he was then he must have had a caloric intake of 3,456,765 cal per day, I jest, however its very odd.

 

[thehog]

if there is data (inc weight) that sits behind the 'lost and found' fax then it is rather telling that it appears not to have been seen by anybody...if Jeroen has not seen it then I doubt anyone else has...

Why wouldn't you just mail the file over?

At the moment we have a fax (once was lost now is found) telling us Froome was fat and lots of other evidence telling us he wasn't..

those are issues Mr Moore and those responsible for the fax should address...

Its disappointing as Richard Moore told me on Twitter that everything had been verified. Alas the publication was not fact checked (he told me it was on twitter and that swart did the heavy lifting on that one). Sadly the data is left out of the final paper because it cannot be qualified.

 

[gillan1969]

if there is data (inc weight) that sits behind the 'lost and found' fax then it is rather telling that it appears not to have been seen by anybody...if Jeroen has not seen it then I doubt anyone else has...

Why wouldn't you just mail the file over?

At the moment we have a fax (once was lost now is found) telling us Froome was fat and lots of other evidence telling us he wasn't..

those are issues Mr Moore and those responsible for the fax should address...

Its disappointing and Richard Moore told me on Twitter that everything had been verified. Alas the publication was not fact checked (he told me it was on twitter and that swart did the heavy lifting on that one). Sadly the data is left out of the final paper because it cannot be qualified.

I'm not a twitterer (t*t or twit ) might be worth tweeting the boy Jeroen references up-thread for the data?

 

[sniper]

didn't they have computers back in 2007 at the UCI u23 facility, with hard disks and all? (honest question)

 

[thehog]

Re:

didn't they have computers back in 2007 at the UCI u23 facility, with hard disks and all? (honest question)

All that exists because the power and heart rate date came from digital sources in a file format (in ASCII format).

The issue not whether there are computers etc. but it does appear Swart is now distancing himself from the 2007 data to the extent that its no longer included in the final summary. To why he didn't want to use it when it really was "the story" is not known to us and very strange. Performance testing on Froome in 2015 is neither here nor there, there was enough data on climbs from races and the leaked Ventoux file to know what Froome does.

The real story which is now the non story is 2007 really for the most part doesn't actually exist in the Froome story.

Nevertheless, good PR, as its made the Esquire print and online magazines with the end line "he just lost the fat", forever set in stone.

 

[Bronstein]

Re: Re:

didn't they have computers back in 2007 at the UCI u23 facility, with hard disks and all? (honest question)

All that exists because the power and heart rate date came from digital sources in a file format (in ASCII format).

The issue not whether there are computers etc. but it does appear Swart is now distancing himself from the 2007 data to the extent that its no longer included in the final summary. To why he didn't want to use it when it really was "the story" is not known to us and very strange. Performance testing on Froome in 2015 is neither here nor there, there was enough data on climbs from races and the leaked Ventoux file to know what Froome does.

The real story which is now the non story is 2007 really for the most part doesn't actually exist in the Froome story.

Nevertheless, good PR, as its made the Esquire print and online magazines with the end line "he just lost the fat", forever set in stone.

Mission accomplished.

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

didn't they have computers back in 2007 at the UCI u23 facility, with hard disks and all? (honest question)

All that exists because the power and heart rate date came from digital sources in a file format (in ASCII format).

The issue not whether there are computers etc. but it does appear Swart is now distancing himself from the 2007 data to the extent that its no longer included in the final summary. To why he didn't want to use it when it really was "the story" is not known to us and very strange. Performance testing on Froome in 2015 is neither here nor there, there was enough data on climbs from races and the leaked Ventoux file to know what Froome does.

The real story which is now the non story is 2007 really for the most part doesn't actually exist in the Froome story.

Nevertheless, good PR, as its made the Esquire print and online magazines with the end line "he just lost the fat", forever set in stone.

Mission accomplished.

Yes, it appears that way. By design? From the Froome's point of view, yes. I think Swart got lead into to be honest but he knows Froome for a long time before the testing and way better than we do to judge the character.

 

[sniper]

Swart benefits from this as much as anybody.
Physiological testing of an SA-scene cyclist who went from zero to hero.
Its ideal propaganda for Swarts private business ( https://www.sciencetosport.com/about-us/ )
If you are an SA cyclist eager to make a breakthrouh, Swart can tell you how.
Ow, and works for SA antidoping so can also tell you how to beat the tests.
What more do you want?
Swart offers the whole package.

Just sayin, i dont think he got lead into this. I think he stepped into this with his eyes wide open.