The Froome Files, test data only thread

[sniper]

That said. Much of the criticism is not levelled at you but at the testing exercise as a whole. That wasn't just you.
E.g. the heart rate, why hasn't sky ordered another day of testing to get that sorted out? That's not your fault.
I admit the critiisism is getting conflated in here (and I might be part guilty of that), and since you have taken on the ungrateful task of defending the testing in public it quickly looks as if all criticism is levelled at you personally. Which is not the case.

Right now one of my main concerns personally is with GSKs website. Seems they arent independent at all.

 

[sniper]

What conspiracy? You're the only one seeing one.

 

[Jeroen Swart]

Re:

That said. Much of the criticism is not levelled at you but at the testing exercise as a whole. That wasn't just you.
E.g. the heart rate, why hasn't sky ordered another day of testing to get that sorted out? That's not your fault.
I admit the critiisism is getting conflated in here (and I might be part guilty of that), and since you have taken on the ungrateful task of defending the testing in public it quickly looks as if all criticism is levelled at you personally. Which is not the case.

Right now one of my main concerns personally is with GSKs website. Seems they arent independent at all.

Hahahahaha.

You have been the ringmaster of personal attacks on me.

Your backtracking when confronted is another of your hallmarks. Reposting them here would break the internet.

 

[djpbaltimore]

Re:

That said. Much of the criticism is not levelled at you but at the testing exercise as a whole. That wasn't just you.
E.g. the heart rate, why hasn't sky ordered another day of testing to get that sorted out? That's not your fault.
I admit the critiisism is getting conflated in here (and I might be part guilty of that), and since you have taken on the ungrateful task of defending the testing in public it quickly looks as if all criticism is levelled at you personally. Which is not the case.

Right now one of my main concerns personally is with GSKs website. Seems they arent independent at all.

This is hypocritical coming from you. I had to report a post from you that directly insulted Dr. Swart just the other day. Then there are the posts like this one below that are all too common.

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.

Btw, here is what the conspiracy theory is for those who are wondering.

<snipped for brevity>
Any chance Sky's lawyers also phoned Swart/GSK to have the max heart rate removed from the data set?

I think Dr. Swart should just ignore posters like Sniper who are just looking to obsfucate and tie up the thread.

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

That said. Much of the criticism is not levelled at you but at the testing exercise as a whole. That wasn't just you.
E.g. the heart rate, why hasn't sky ordered another day of testing to get that sorted out? That's not your fault.
I admit the critiisism is getting conflated in here (and I might be part guilty of that), and since you have taken on the ungrateful task of defending the testing in public it quickly looks as if all criticism is levelled at you personally. Which is not the case.

Right now one of my main concerns personally is with GSKs website. Seems they arent independent at all.

Hahahahaha.

You have been the ringmaster of personal attacks on me.

Your backtracking when confronted is another of your hallmarks. Reposting them here would break the internet.

I've called you on your conflicts of interest. That's another thing. Never backtracked on that and never will, until u address them or resolve them. I think people with conflicts of interest are currently the biggest problem in topsport.
But Again, the flaws in the testing aren't your faults alone. It's a shared responsibility with Moore, sky, Froome and GSk.

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

Baltimore, that wouldn't be a conspiracy.
It would be plain scientific fraud. Par for the course for sports science. But it seems you've learned remarkably little from recent cases in point such as Coyle and Vrijman.

 

[Jeroen Swart]

Re: Re:

That said. Much of the criticism is not levelled at you but at the testing exercise as a whole. That wasn't just you.
E.g. the heart rate, why hasn't sky ordered another day of testing to get that sorted out? That's not your fault.
I admit the critiisism is getting conflated in here (and I might be part guilty of that), and since you have taken on the ungrateful task of defending the testing in public it quickly looks as if all criticism is levelled at you personally. Which is not the case.

Right now one of my main concerns personally is with GSKs website. Seems they arent independent at all.

This is hypocritical coming from you. I had to report a post from you that directly insulted Dr. Swart just the other day. Then there are the posts like this one below that are all too common.

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.

Btw, here is what the conspiracy theory is for those who are wondering.

<snipped for brevity>
Any chance Sky's lawyers also phoned Swart/GSK to have the max heart rate removed from the data set?

I think Dr. Swart should just ignore posters like Sniper who are just looking to obsfucate and tie up the thread.

Thank you for saving me the trouble.

Like I said. If I reposted all of his personal attacks, innuendos, conspiracy theories and the like it would break the internet.

 

[sniper]

Again, pointing out conflicts of interest is not a personal attack. In fact, identifying, addressing and resolving COIs is a fundamental part of science. As I do hope you are aware. If you continue to ignore them that's your good right. It tells me all I need to know.
The biggest problem topsport and antidoping are facing is the vast number of people involved awho are conflicted by different COIs, and the fact that this is seen as normal.
It's the seed of corruption, fraud, cheating and doping.

 

[Jeroen Swart]

Re:

Again, pointing out conflicts of interest is not a personal attack. In fact, identifying, addressing and resolving COIs is a fundamental part of science. As I do hope you are aware. If you continue to ignore them that's your good right. It tells me all I need to know.
The biggest problem topsport and antidoping are facing is the vast number of people involved awho are conflicted by different COIs, and the fact that this is seen as normal.
It's the seed of corruption.

I am perfectly happy with 100% transparency. I have nothing to hide.

JL Augustyn & Team Sky

I have NO affiliation with, contract with, collaboration with or interaction with Team Sky other than what I describe below:

In mid 2010 Dr Richard Freeman visited our Sports Science Institute as a fact-finding mission as part of the teams “marginal gains” strategy. We provided some feedback on this meeting and suggested some methods that would be useful to them such as the LSCT test which we developed and use to monitor training adaptation and fatigue. As a follow up to this meeting I visited their base in Manchester after attending the 2010 BASES conference in Glasgow and I had a tour of the Sky and British Cycling facilities and shook hands with a few of their staff. It was clear that they were not interested in any further collaboration or advise and we left it at that.

I first interacted with JL Augustyn in mid 2010 when he was recovering from a knee injury. He asked me to examine him as Sky had not been able to resolve the injury and he was back in SA recovering. During this assessment I requested an x-ray scannogram to assess his leg lengths and this incidentally identified some changes secondary to osteonecrosis in his hip. At the time I sent a report to Richard and advised him that JL would probably develop complications in that hip at a later date.

After returning to SA JL asked me to assess him for recurring groin / hip pain and our medical team confirmed that it was as a result of the osteonecrosis of his hip. He eventually underwent hip resurfacing surgery and after this I was actively involved in his rehabilitation together with a multi-disciplinary team here at the Sports Science Institute of SA.

As part of his rehabilitation I provided him with a general conditioning and cycling specific training program. This continued until the San Sebastian Classic which was also his first race after the surgery. In the weeks before that race I had some correspondence with Bobby Julich who was his official coach at Sky and he provided some additional input with regards to his training load and recovery periods. As it turned out, his contract was not renewed at the end of 2011 despite the successful return to sport and when JL moved on he asked if I could continue providing him with coaching, which I did until his retirement in 2014.

That is a complete summary of my interaction with team Sky.

Cycling SA selection

On request I agreed to become a selector for mountainbiking in 2012 and high performance consultant for mountainbiking to CSA. However, I insisted that this be done using very clear selection criteria, objective rankings based on percentage of winners times and other objective criteria. This plan was successfully implemented and worked well in mountainbiking due to the lack of team tactics and individualized competition.

Whenever any athletes that I coached were up for selection I recused myself to prevent any perceived COI, despite these objective criteria in place.

In September 2013 I resigned from my position as I felt that decisions were no longer being made objectively and I felt that my recommendations and input were not being implemented or given due consideration.

I am therefore not involved in any selection processes or any other work related to CSA.

SAIDS

I have worked for SAIDS since 2010 as a doping control review commission member. We review samples in an anonymous fashion as well as reviewing ABP data and providing technical expertise.

All sample analyses are blinded and coded and I have absolutely no influence on who is tested or any way to affect the sample analysis.

The potential COI that my coaching work presents was disclosed at inception and I initially declined their offer to be part of the commission based on this. However, due to the lack of expertise in South Africa, SAIDS requested that I participate and they implemented specific protocols to prevent any COI from occurring. I do agree that this is a perceived COI but as stated they feel that, on balance, the benefit of my involvement outweighs any perceived COI.

I was recently asked to increase the scope of my work with SAIDS and I have declined due to the possibility of COI events arising should I have accepted this.

Lastly, the other members of the DCRC review all decisions or comments and any subjective decision would easily be exposed if this were the case.

 

[King Boonen]

I thought this thread was for discussing the data, not Jeroen?

 

[Jeroen Swart]

Re:

I thought this thread was for discussing the data, not Jeroen?

Sniper seems to need to discuss me often.

 

[Ironhead Slim]

I still find it odd the heart rate is not relevant to physiological testing.

You can give me smart ass answers but you know full well that data should be there and so does everyone else posting here. Obfuscation only gives a hint that there is trouble behind the scenes.

 

[King Boonen]

I still find it odd the heart rate is not relevant to physiological testing.

You can give me smart *** answers but you know full well that data should be there and so does everyone else posting here. Obfuscation only gives a hint that there is trouble behind the scenes.

Jeroen has asked a fair question about this, why is the heart rate data relevant? What do you think it will show?

 

[Jeroen Swart]

I still find it odd the heart rate is not relevant to physiological testing.

You can give me smart *** answers but you know full well that data should be there and so does everyone else posting here. Obfuscation only gives a hint that there is trouble behind the scenes.

I have responded clearly and without any smart*** answers. Not a hint of obfuscation.

Your comment is pure trolling.

We presented a wealth of data. The heart rate data loss is regrettable but not fundamental.

As per previous posts: What do you hope to see in it?

 

[Ironhead Slim]

I still find it odd the heart rate is not relevant to physiological testing.

You can give me smart *** answers but you know full well that data should be there and so does everyone else posting here. Obfuscation only gives a hint that there is trouble behind the scenes.

Jeroen has asked a fair question about this, why is the heart rate data relevant? What do you think it will show?

I don't know what it will show, that is why the data should be there. It would tell us more about what makes Froome a superstar.

The funniest thing is how some defend that the data is irrelevant. They meant for it to be there apparently so someone thought it was important. Instead of saying "F@ck, the data wasn't collected we should start over, do over", etc, the response was "It isn't useful info anyway"

 

[Soggy Chamois]

I still find it odd the heart rate is not relevant to physiological testing.

You can give me smart *** answers but you know full well that data should be there and so does everyone else posting here. Obfuscation only gives a hint that there is trouble behind the scenes.

Jeroen has asked a fair question about this, why is the heart rate data relevant? What do you think it will show?

I could be wrong, but I wonder if people might be suggesting that if there was a drastically different type of heart rate response in the testing vs the leaked heart rate data - that that might be of interest. If the testing showed heart rate data upwards of 185 or something like that as an example and the leaked files show 161 during a significant, anaerobic attack, perhaps that would be an interesting discussion about why there would be such a large discrepancy.

 

[Jeroen Swart]

Re:

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.

Last edited by Irondan on 13 Aug 2016 19:37, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Personal attack of forum member, baiting, flaming, and name calling.

Nothing personal here.

 

[Jeroen Swart]

I still find it odd the heart rate is not relevant to physiological testing.

You can give me smart *** answers but you know full well that data should be there and so does everyone else posting here. Obfuscation only gives a hint that there is trouble behind the scenes.

Jeroen has asked a fair question about this, why is the heart rate data relevant? What do you think it will show?

I could be wrong, but I wonder if people might be suggesting that if there was a drastically different type of heart rate response in the testing vs the leaked heart rate data - that that might be of interest. If the testing showed heart rate data upwards of 185 or something like that as an example and the leaked files show 161 during a significant, anaerobic attack, perhaps that would be an interesting discussion about why there would be such a large discrepancy.

Ok. That's fair. But what would the discrepancy indicate?

A motor?

If a motor was present, the torque applied would be in the opposite direction to the force applied by pedalling. As a result the stages power meter would show a very low power output.

As the leaked files captured data from Froome's own power meter they invalidate the hypothesis that he used a motor.

So that then asks the question again: What would a discrepancy in heart rate demonstrate?

 

[Jeroen Swart]

I still find it odd the heart rate is not relevant to physiological testing.

You can give me smart *** answers but you know full well that data should be there and so does everyone else posting here. Obfuscation only gives a hint that there is trouble behind the scenes.

Jeroen has asked a fair question about this, why is the heart rate data relevant? What do you think it will show?

I could be wrong, but I wonder if people might be suggesting that if there was a drastically different type of heart rate response in the testing vs the leaked heart rate data - that that might be of interest. If the testing showed heart rate data upwards of 185 or something like that as an example and the leaked files show 161 during a significant, anaerobic attack, perhaps that would be an interesting discussion about why there would be such a large discrepancy.

Ok. That's fair. But what would the discrepancy indicate?

A motor?

If a motor was present, the torque applied would be in the opposite direction to the force applied by pedalling. As a result the stages power meter would show a very low power output.

As the leaked files captured data from Froome's own power meter they invalidate the hypothesis that he used a motor.

So that then asks the question again: What would a discrepancy in heart rate demonstrate?

As an addendum: The paper has heart rate data from the sub maximal test.

The only missing data is the maximal heart rate.

The sub maximal heart rate is not significantly different to that from the leaked files.

Case closed.

 

[Soggy Chamois]

I could be wrong, but I wonder if people might be suggesting that if there was a drastically different type of heart rate response in the testing vs the leaked heart rate data - that that might be of interest. If the testing showed heart rate data upwards of 185 or something like that as an example and the leaked files show 161 during a significant, anaerobic attack, perhaps that would be an interesting discussion about why there would be such a large discrepancy.

Ok. That's fair. But what would the discrepancy indicate?

A motor?

If a motor was present, the torque applied would be in the opposite direction to the force applied by pedalling. As a result the stages power meter would show a very low power output.

As the leaked files captured data from Froome's own power meter they invalidate the hypothesis that he used a motor.

So that then asks the question again: What would a discrepancy in heart rate demonstrate?

As an addendum: The paper has heart rate data from the sub maximal test.

The only missing data is the maximal heart rate.

The sub maximal heart rate is not significantly different to that from the leaked files.

Case closed.

I’m not sure what a discrepancy would mean and didn’t make any suggestions that it would indicate anything nefarious – only that it could be an area of discussion should it have existed. I was only suggesting that maybe a large discrepancy is an example of a scenario that might fuel some posters’ desires to see that missing data, since you were asking. If the sub-maximal data refutes that discrepancy possibility, then it seems right that that scenario has been addressed.

 

[Irondan]

Re:

I thought this thread was for discussing the data, not Jeroen?

That's correct, this thread is to discuss the data.

Any off topic posting or trolling will be met with a ban from the forum, consider this an official board warning.

Edit: I haven't read this thread for about 24 hours, but I'm going to go back through and filter out any trolling/baiting/off topic comments and deal with them accordingly.

 

[Soggy Chamois]

For Dr. Swart and the other sports scientists on the forum, is the 9.8% body fat figure at all surprising coming only 3 weeks after the Tour De France conclusion where many riders, including Froome look almost emaciated? Indeed, Moore himself uses the word emaciated to describe Froome even at the time of the GSK lab testing.

Similarly, does that 9.8% body fat make sense when Froome plans to start and perform well at a second grand tour only 5 days after the August 2015 testing?

How low of a body fat percentage would a typical elite cyclist be able to reach before one might expect performance/power to begin to decline? Is there an optimal body fat percentage range to target for grand tours?

Do you think grand tour riders, whether through WADA compliant methods or doping methods, might be trying to drop additional body weight by reducing their bone mass - since one might expect an ability to drop additional weight without impacting power if bone mass is targeted?

Returning to the data, if Dr. Swart or anyone else with a sports science interest/background is reading, any thoughts on the above questions?

 

[Jeroen Swart]

For Dr. Swart and the other sports scientists on the forum, is the 9.8% body fat figure at all surprising coming only 3 weeks after the Tour De France conclusion where many riders, including Froome look almost emaciated? Indeed, Moore himself uses the word emaciated to describe Froome even at the time of the GSK lab testing.

Similarly, does that 9.8% body fat make sense when Froome plans to start and perform well at a second grand tour only 5 days after the August 2015 testing?

How low of a body fat percentage would a typical elite cyclist be able to reach before one might expect performance/power to begin to decline? Is there an optimal body fat percentage range to target for grand tours?

Do you think grand tour riders, whether through WADA compliant methods or doping methods, might be trying to drop additional body weight by reducing their bone mass - since one might expect an ability to drop additional weight without impacting power if bone mass is targeted?

Returning to the data, if Dr. Swart or anyone else with a sports science interest/background is reading, any thoughts on the above questions?

His BF% was certainly higher than expected for a GT.

It probably demonstrates how hard it is for him to maintain a lower BF%.

He does look deceptively thin but this has more to do with his long arm span and long legs. Hence it contrasts to the measured BF which is high in relative performance terms.

With regards to bone mass, I cannot see that being a legitimate target to reduce mass. Cycling is a know risk factor for osteoporosis and osteopaenia.

 

[thehog]

I still find it odd the heart rate is not relevant to physiological testing.

You can give me smart *** answers but you know full well that data should be there and so does everyone else posting here. Obfuscation only gives a hint that there is trouble behind the scenes.

Jeroen has asked a fair question about this, why is the heart rate data relevant? What do you think it will show?

I could be wrong, but I wonder if people might be suggesting that if there was a drastically different type of heart rate response in the testing vs the leaked heart rate data - that that might be of interest. If the testing showed heart rate data upwards of 185 or something like that as an example and the leaked files show 161 during a significant, anaerobic attack, perhaps that would be an interesting discussion about why there would be such a large discrepancy.

Here's the thing, one rider could have the same power output as Froome with a max heart rate of 190 and Froome being at 165. That's why the actual number itself doesn't tell a whole of information about the rider themselves. Heartrate is specific to the individual.

However Froome does appear to have a very low max heart or more to the point when he is at threshold or close to it, it doesn't dial up as high as some other riders might. It would have been good to have max heart rate in the test as then it would have confirmed the leaked video data,

There is a trainingpeaks output file of Froome's 2011 Vuelta ITT. His heart rare barely gets out of the 140 zone and hits 169 a couple of times - http://home.trainingpeaks.com/athlete/workout/Z3JDD63H2UVGP77YSXNITPULAE

I think he might be just one of those guys who heart that doesn't tick like crazy during big efforts. Either that or he is using EPO to slow his rate down or a motor.

Not much more can be said.

 

[Jeroen Swart]

I still find it odd the heart rate is not relevant to physiological testing.

You can give me smart *** answers but you know full well that data should be there and so does everyone else posting here. Obfuscation only gives a hint that there is trouble behind the scenes.

Jeroen has asked a fair question about this, why is the heart rate data relevant? What do you think it will show?

I could be wrong, but I wonder if people might be suggesting that if there was a drastically different type of heart rate response in the testing vs the leaked heart rate data - that that might be of interest. If the testing showed heart rate data upwards of 185 or something like that as an example and the leaked files show 161 during a significant, anaerobic attack, perhaps that would be an interesting discussion about why there would be such a large discrepancy.

Here's the thing, one rider could have the same power output as Froome with a max heart rate of 190 and Froome being at 165. That's why the actual number itself doesn't tell a whole of information about the rider themselves. Heartrate is specific to the individual.

However Froome does appear to have a very low max heart or more to the point when he is at threshold or close to it, it doesn't dial up as high as some other riders might. It would have been good to have max heart rate in the test as then it would have confirmed the leaked video data,

There is a trainingpeaks output file of Froome's 2011 Vuelta ITT. His heart rare barely gets out of the 140 zone and hits 169 a couple of times - http://home.trainingpeaks.com/athlete/workout/Z3JDD63H2UVGP77YSXNITPULAE

I think he might be just one of those guys who heart that doesn't tick like crazy during big efforts. Either that or he is using EPO to slow his rate down or a motor.

Not much more can be said.

As I said: The heart rate data for the sub maximal tests is there in the paper.

It correlates with the leaked files and when you extrapolate linearly correlates with his reported maximum.

In short, there are no obvious discrepancies and the heart rate data (present and absent) are therefore fairly irrelevant.

He has a low heart rate. As you point out, it is highly individualised. EPO does not alter maximum heart rate. It alters power.

I've discussed the motor story a few times already. Both the leaked files and test data clearly show there is no motor.