The Froome Files, test data only thread

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Re: Re:

...
Then pray your research never goes through your organisation's PR dept or gets reported on in the media, which by and large does a crap job of reporting on published science, usually in order to find a click bait headline

What Swart/GSK did hasn't got much to do with research in the way I define it.
Or in the way google defines it:

the systematic investigation into and study of materials and sources in order to establish facts and reach new conclusions

they haven't established facts (although they falsely claim to), let alone reached new conclusions.

Well consider the opening line of the paper:

This case study reports a range of physiological characteristics in a two-time Tour de France champion.

They did some basic/typical physiological testing and reported on the results. It was a case study, not scientific research. What where you expecting the outcome would be? A grand Unified Theory?

 

[sniper]

Good, so we seem to agree we should stop calling it scientific research.
That's a start.
The other conclusion we seem to agree on is that Sky/Moore/Froome have abused the case study to mislead their fans by claiming it has some kind of bearing on Froome's cleanliness.

Those are two valuable conclusions, me thinks.

The other conclusion is that the study is misleading in claiming it shows something about Froome's true physiology.
It clearly does not.
Whether that claim was meant to be deliberately misleading or was merely born out of stupidity will remain open to debate.

 

[gillan1969]

Re: Re:

the results of the study are pretty much irrelevant as they tell us what we already know i.e. the bleedin' obvious..

Well I've already made that precise point.

its all about the interpreting and the reporting.....

and we all know what that is for....or as Moore put it to perhaps its widest audience on Radio 4...."the really interesting bit is the weight loss"

the disappointment is that those with a narrow scientific remit are perhaps blind to the wider 'ecosystem' in which they play a part. Swart being one and his rather 'confused' cheerleader (Burnley?) being another.....

How media/others report on science I agree, it could be much better. That's a global comment as much as one specific to this particular matter. It's a universal problem.

I've not followed everything Swart/Burnley have said, although I've not seen them say anything to suggest this work provides any insight into doping status. I'm hardly a stalker of exercise physiologists though :lol:

fair points...

Swart has played a relatively straight bat...but then that was his role as cast (real as opposed to psuedo-scientist)....although I'm sure sniper will disagree and to be fair he has been off the mark in his claims about SKY pioneering 'science' in cycling...

The problem is we all knew the script and could predict the outcome all along...

The problem is less the actors and more the director and producer...if you will

pointing out the ending of the story mid-plot however was met with open derision by the likes of Burnley..

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

...

Swart has played a relatively straight bat...but then that was his role as cast (real as opposed to psuedo-scientist)....although I'm sure sniper will disagree and to be fair he has been off the mark in his claims about SKY pioneering 'science' in cycling...

I don't disagree about Swart playing relatively straight bat. He delivered what he promised and nobody (other than Froome, Moore and Sky) ever claimed or expected this study to have any bearing on Froome's cleanliness.

I'm just saying the conclusions drawn in the study are flawed and misleading, as they ignore what is arguably the single most important variable in performance: PEDs.
That's either a deliberate choice from the authors (in which case scientific fraud, as they know it matters but decide to ignore it), or just terribly sloppy from the authors (in which case just bad science). Either way, pseudo-science. But again, it's what we expected, and it's what Swart promised. No more no less. So yes, that's straight batting.
And as I've said many times, in fairness to Swart: pseudoscience is par for the course for the field of present day exercise physiology and sports science. The whole field is one part fraud, one part pseudo-science, and a very small part doing actual science (the likes of Ashenden).

 

[sniper]

That said, I don't doubt that the likes of Swart and Jeukendrup are actually doing real sports science behind the scenes.
But that's the stuff they're less likely to write and tweet about

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Re:

The other conclusion is that the study is misleading in claiming it shows something about Froome's true physiology.
It clearly does not.
Whether that claim was meant to be deliberately misleading or was merely born out of stupidity will remain open to debate.

It was a case study that reported on the physiological characteristics of the athlete as presented and as an example of someone that had won two TdFs. Again, it was not research into why or how Froome (or any athlete) achieves such outcomes.

 

[Benotti69]

Heart Rate

Heart rate was collected continuously via a wireless telemetry system (Polar T34, Polar Electro (UK) Ltd, Warwick, UK). In the submaximal aerobic test, heart rate data from the final 30 s of each stage was used for further analysis, whilst in the maximal test heart rate data collection was incomplete due to a signal drop out mid-way through the test.

Bummer.

GT winners and machine testing errors. How convenient!

 

[gillan1969]

Re: Re:

The other conclusion is that the study is misleading in claiming it shows something about Froome's true physiology.
It clearly does not.
Whether that claim was meant to be deliberately misleading or was merely born out of stupidity will remain open to debate.

It was a case study that reported on the physiological characteristics of the athlete as presented and as an example of someone that had won two TdFs. Again, it was not research into why or how Froome (or any athlete) achieves such outcomes.

....and its publication three days ago with no fanfare or coverage is in marked contrast to the Esquire piece......with Moore's conclusions.

Not sure if we can get hold of the study (rather than abstract conclusions) just now(?) however it does appear, by using 'prerequisite', heavily infer natural ability, or as sniper says 'true ability'....

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

The other conclusion is that the study is misleading in claiming it shows something about Froome's true physiology.
It clearly does not.
Whether that claim was meant to be deliberately misleading or was merely born out of stupidity will remain open to debate.

It was a case study that reported on the physiological characteristics of the athlete ...

Exactly, and *contrary to what the authors claim*, we've learned absolutely nothing about those characteristics as we don't know what drugs he was on.
And the astonishing thing is that the authors have done nothing to try and figure that out. Froome could have been on speed or pot belge and the authors wouldn't have known. AICAR, microdosing, amphetamines, coke. The authors have made not a single attempt to test that, and so we end up knowing nothing, zilch, nada about Froome's true physiological characteristics. Fact.

That ignorance/sloppiness (however you wanna call it) on the part of the testers is astonishing, the more so considering drugs is well-known to play a huge part in pro-cycling. That is very well documented, and at least two of the testers even work for antidoping agencies.
So altogether that's either awfully bad science, or just deliberately misleading. Call it scientific fraud or call it pseudoscience. Just don't call it science. For the love of science.

 

[gillan1969]

Re: Re:

The other conclusion is that the study is misleading in claiming it shows something about Froome's true physiology.
It clearly does not.
Whether that claim was meant to be deliberately misleading or was merely born out of stupidity will remain open to debate.

It was a case study that reported on the physiological characteristics of the athlete ...

Exactly, and we've learned absolutely nothing about those characteristics as we don't know what drugs he was on.
And the astonishing thing is that the authors have done nothing to try and figure that out. Froome could have been on speed or pot belge and the authors wouldn't have known. AICAR, microdosing. Again, the authors have made not a single attempt to test that, and so we end up knowing nothing, zilch, nada about Froome's true physiological characteristics. Fact.

That ignorance/sloppiness (however you wanna call it) on the part of the testers is astonishing, the more so considering drugs is well-known to play a huge part in pro-cycling. That is very well documented, and at least two of the testers even work for antidoping agencies.
So altogether that's either awfully bad science, or just deliberately misleading. Call it scientific fraud.

they answered the question they were asked...

...its not their fault they had their backs to the elephant when they were asked the question...(despite the repeated shouts from the audience - "its behind you, its behind you" )

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

The other conclusion is that the study is misleading in claiming it shows something about Froome's true physiology.
It clearly does not.
Whether that claim was meant to be deliberately misleading or was merely born out of stupidity will remain open to debate.

It was a case study that reported on the physiological characteristics of the athlete as presented and as an example of someone that had won two TdFs. Again, it was not research into why or how Froome (or any athlete) achieves such outcomes.

In other words pointless.

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

...
they answered the question they were asked...

and any self-respecting scientist with a minimum of ethical standards would've said "thanks but no thanks". Which is perhaps how they ended up with Swart in the first place

 

[gillan1969]

Re: Re:

...
they answered the question they were asked...

and any self-respecting scientist with a minimum of ethical standards would've said "thanks but no thanks". Which is perhaps how they ended up with Swart in the first place

no comment

 

[Amaru]

Re: Re:

The other conclusion is that the study is misleading in claiming it shows something about Froome's true physiology.
It clearly does not.
Whether that claim was meant to be deliberately misleading or was merely born out of stupidity will remain open to debate.

It was a case study that reported on the physiological characteristics of the athlete ...

Exactly, and *contrary to what the authors claim*, we've learned absolutely nothing about those characteristics as we don't know what drugs he was on.
And the astonishing thing is that the authors have done nothing to try and figure that out. Froome could have been on speed or pot belge and the authors wouldn't have known. AICAR, microdosing, amphetamines, coke. The authors have made not a single attempt to test that, and so we end up knowing nothing, zilch, nada about Froome's true physiological characteristics. Fact.

That ignorance/sloppiness (however you wanna call it) on the part of the testers is astonishing, the more so considering drugs is well-known to play a huge part in pro-cycling. That is very well documented, and at least two of the testers even work for antidoping agencies.
So altogether that's either awfully bad science, or just deliberately misleading. Call it scientific fraud or call it pseudoscience. Just don't call it science. For the love of science.

I disagree, the authors claim that they provided insight about the physiological characteristics of a TdF winner and that's exactly what they did.
Whether he's doping or not is irrelevant for them, don't get me wrong it's 100% relevant for every cycling enthusiast, but they never claimed to show his real physiology or something similar.
They probably could have said something about PED in the discussion but this was not the subject of their researches so...

However it absolutely is a cheesy way to do science, that we can agree on, and their article is definitively empty but the methods is not wrong, it just doesn't mean a lot (or anything really).

 

[gillan1969]

Re: Re:

The other conclusion is that the study is misleading in claiming it shows something about Froome's true physiology.
It clearly does not.
Whether that claim was meant to be deliberately misleading or was merely born out of stupidity will remain open to debate.

It was a case study that reported on the physiological characteristics of the athlete ...

Exactly, and *contrary to what the authors claim*, we've learned absolutely nothing about those characteristics as we don't know what drugs he was on.
And the astonishing thing is that the authors have done nothing to try and figure that out. Froome could have been on speed or pot belge and the authors wouldn't have known. AICAR, microdosing, amphetamines, coke. The authors have made not a single attempt to test that, and so we end up knowing nothing, zilch, nada about Froome's true physiological characteristics. Fact.

That ignorance/sloppiness (however you wanna call it) on the part of the testers is astonishing, the more so considering drugs is well-known to play a huge part in pro-cycling. That is very well documented, and at least two of the testers even work for antidoping agencies.
So altogether that's either awfully bad science, or just deliberately misleading. Call it scientific fraud or call it pseudoscience. Just don't call it science. For the love of science.

I disagree, the authors claim that they provided insight about the physiological characteristics of a TdF winner and that's exactly what they did.
Whether he's doping or not is irrelevant for them, don't get me wrong it's 100% relevant for every cycling enthusiast, but they never claimed to show his real physiology or something similar.
They probably could have said something about PED in the discussion but this was not the subject of their researches so...

However it absolutely is a cheesy way to do science, that we can agree on, and their article is definitively empty but the methods is not wrong, it just doesn't mean a lot (or anything really).

BHS is instructive

bankers were keen to advise and accountants happy to sign off the affairs of Chappelle's Retail Acquisitions...did he have funds was the question...yes, he had funds was the answer...trebles all round as the deal completes

Of course, as the whole sorry saga drags itself out we are left to wonder how these professionals managed to miss the big red flag that some of the funds he had were provided (loaned) by the seller, Mr Green, himself....

those with an enquiring mind, you would have thought, could have prevented this debacle...but no...don't look for no evil, see no evil...........

And so here we are with our hapless hero...the interesting question as to how he came by this physiology, like Mr Chappelles' wealth, so sadly not being asked by our scientists.... Poland, a few thousand in the bank...Vuelta, a billionaire

and if scientists don't have enquiring minds then.............................what hope

 

[sniper]

fair points, Amaru.
And Swart knows I don't have a beef with him in particular, but more with sports science / exercise physiology in general. <edited by mods>
A true paradigm change is needed for that discipline, because as it stands, the vast majority of exercise and performance studies are disposable viz. meaningless, as the studies don't control for the variable of doping which is arguable the single most determining factor in exercise and performance.
The truly deplorable part is that people like Swart and Jeukendrup don't even *attempt* to control for that variable, although they know darn well how impactful it is.
But since their principal money making business is the coaching of athletes and selling nutritional products, it's in their interest to pretend that doping doesn't matter. And so they don't talk about it.
Check out Jeukendrup's twitter feed. It's a truly astonishing cabinet of disposable pseudoscience.

Jeukendrup and <edited by mods>, harmful to (the development of) true sports science.

 

[sniper]

nice analogy, gillan, and that closing remark is really getting to the core of things.

 

[djpbaltimore]

Re: Re:

...
they answered the question they were asked...

and any self-respecting scientist with a minimum of ethical standards would've said "thanks but no thanks". Which is perhaps how they ended up with Swart in the first place

Attack the messenger when you can't debate on the scientific merits of the paper.

 

[djpbaltimore]

Re: Re:

FWIW.

"No external funding was provided or sought in the preparation and completion of this manuscript."

Are you HIGH?

seriously maybe I'm missing your point but do you think dude is clean?

I understand politics, No problem, this NO FREAKING WAY. No way.

It's sad that the authors even need to indicate that.
If your research was funded, you indicate it e.g. in a footnote. If it wasn't funded, you indicate nothing.

Also, that comment still leaves open the question whether he and GSK got any money from Sky for carrying out the actual tests.

No it doesn't. Carrying out the tests is part of the preparation of the manuscript.

All journals ask for funding sources. It is always indicated in some manner.

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

FWIW.

"No external funding was provided or sought in the preparation and completion of this manuscript."

Are you HIGH?

seriously maybe I'm missing your point but do you think dude is clean?

I understand politics, No problem, this NO FREAKING WAY. No way.

It's sad that the authors even need to indicate that.
If your research was funded, you indicate it e.g. in a footnote. If it wasn't funded, you indicate nothing.

Also, that comment still leaves open the question whether he and GSK got any money from Sky for carrying out the actual tests.

No it doesn't. Carrying out the tests is part of the preparation of the manuscript.

I can read, don't worry, and it's ambiguous at best.
The manuscript wasn't even planned when Sky/Froome ordered the tests. So whatever Sky hypothetically paid Swart/GSK, it was for tests only, not for a manuscript.

All journals ask for funding sources. It is always indicated in some manner.

If there is funding, then yes.
Is the absence of funding usually indicated, too? Not in my branch. But if it is in yours, then I stand corrected.

 

[djpbaltimore]

Re: Re:

Collecting the data is always part of the manuscript preparation in science. There is no ambiguity.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Re: Re:

Collecting the data is always part of the manuscript preparation in science. There is no ambiguity.

Since I can't scientifically "understand" what it is I'm being sold, I just have to say that Technical glitch seems a bit convenient.
A few other technical issues are troubling - Testing set up equipment used etc.

But I guess that is just attacking the messenger?

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

Collecting the data is always part of the manuscript preparation in science. There is no ambiguity.

No it is not.
And so yes there is ambiguity.
But it's an irrelevant footnote in the wider scheme of things, so don't get your knickers in a twist about it.
As has been said previously, he should've gotten paid for the testing.

 

[gillan1969]

Re: Re:

Collecting the data is always part of the manuscript preparation in science. There is no ambiguity.

Since I can't scientifically "understand" what it is I'm being sold, I just have to say that Technical glitch seems a bit convenient.
A few other technical issues are troubling - Testing set up equipment used etc.

But I guess that is just attacking the messenger?

the glitches seem a bit amateur but a red herring.

all they ever wanted was a scientific paper (published) with which they could wave in the face of the psuedo-scientists...

its been delivered with the added "he just lost the weight" bonus for 10

Swart should not have been out-manoeuvred by a journo......

 

[djpbaltimore]

Re: Re:

Collecting the data is always part of the manuscript preparation in science. There is no ambiguity.

No it is not.
And so yes there is ambiguity.
But it's an irrelevant footnote in the wider scheme of things, so don't get your knickers in a twist about it.
As has been said previously, he should've gotten paid for the testing.

How can you say that when you are clearly not a scientist? You don't have any credibility. The money part is the collection of the data. Writing the manuscript doesn't cost anything.

Its irrelevant? Yet the financial motivation has come up again and again in this thread, including what you just wrote up thread.

Attack Dr. Swart, attack me. Keep it classy, Sniper.

He should not have gotten paid for the tests. It was part of his job as a researcher. The university pays his salary in that capacity. That is how academia works.