The Froome Files, test data only thread

[IzzyStradlin]

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

So, if doing the same amount of work, a Froome on dope would have a lower heart rate than a clean Froome. Because the doped Froome is capable of doing way more work.

 

[Jeroen Swart]

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

So, if doing the same amount of work, a Froome on dope would have a lower heart rate than a clean Froome. Because the doped Froome is capable of doing way more work.

Yes. There you are correct.

But the test data demonstrate a sub maximal heart rate of 138bpm at 419W which is 80% of PPO and would almost certainly not result in a MHR of over 170bpm when extrapolated linearly.

 

[sniper]

Thanks for expanding on your situation with regards to Sky, JLA and SAIDS, Jeroen. Appreciate it, interesting, and certainly fair enough.

 

[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.

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.

To the bolded, EPO does not alter power (on its own), it alters the RBC count and thus lowers the max and resting heart rate. Increased power is a side effect of increased vo2 and oxygen transportation to the muscles.

The max heart rate is decreased by the increase in blood volume. That's why pre-2011 data would be very interesting.

 

[Merckx index]

To the bolded, EPO does not alter power (on its own), it alters the RBC count and thus lowers the max and resting heart rate. Increased power is a side effect of increased vo2 and oxygen transportation to the muscles.

The max heart rate is decreased by the increase in blood volume. That's why pre-2011 data would be very interesting.

If EPO decreases heart rate, it would be because it increases blood viscosity, not volume. This is why in the early days several cyclists apparently died in their sleep from overdosing with EPO--the thick blood slowed down the heart even further from what it would be during sleep.

Volume and heart rate would tend to be positively correlated, if anything. E.g., during a GT, indeed, just over the course of the racing season, blood volume of racers tends to go up and viscosity down, because of plasma expansion, and some studies have shown this is accompanied by an increase in cardiac output. AC probably knows more about this effect.

But unless you took a crapload of it, a la in 90s heyday, I don't think the viscosity increase resulting from EPO would be enough to affect heart rate very much. I'd be very surprised if HT increases in the passport era were enough to affect heart rate.

 

[thehog]

To the bolded, EPO does not alter power (on its own), it alters the RBC count and thus lowers the max and resting heart rate. Increased power is a side effect of increased vo2 and oxygen transportation to the muscles.

The max heart rate is decreased by the increase in blood volume. That's why pre-2011 data would be very interesting.

If EPO decreases heart rate, it would be because it increases blood viscosity, not volume. This is why in the early days several cyclists apparently died in their sleep from overdosing with EPO--the thick blood slowed down the heart even further from what it would be during sleep.

Volume and heart rate would tend to be positively correlated, if anything. E.g., during a GT, indeed, just over the course of the racing season, blood volume of racers tends to go up and viscosity down, because of plasma expansion, and some studies have shown this is accompanied by an increase in cardiac output. AC probably knows more about this effect.

But unless you took a crapload of it, a la in 90s heyday, I don't think the viscosity increase resulting from EPO would be enough to affect heart rate very much. I'd be very surprised if HT increases in the passport era were enough to affect heart rate.

I wont' pretend to know a lot about the scientific aspect of EPO usage but there are several anecdotal accounts of a drop in both resting and max heart rates through the interwebs. You probably won't find a lot of research on as most of the data is locked away on Ferrari's hard drive.

Part of these risks (besides cells volume problem) are reduced with EPO, a drug that basically equates to “chemical blood doping”. Some studies have shown that athletes have had an 9% increase in VO2 max, 7% increase in power output, and a 5% decrease in max heart rate.

 

[acoggan]

Volume and heart rate would tend to be positively correlated, if anything. E.g., during a GT, indeed, just over the course of the racing season, blood volume of racers tends to go up and viscosity down, because of plasma expansion, and some studies have shown this is accompanied by an increase in cardiac output. AC probably knows more about this effect.

Increases in blood volume tend to decrease submaximal and maximal heart rates, e.g.:

https://www.academia.edu/238310/Coyle_EF_Hemmert_MK_Coggan_AR._Effects_of_detraining_upon_cardiovascular_responses_to_exercise_role_of_blood_volume._J_Appl_Physiol_1986_60_95-99

https://www.academia.edu/238317/Hopper_MK_Coggan_AR_Coyle_EF._Exercise_stroke_volume_relative_to_plasma_volume_expansion._J_Appl_Physiol_1988_64_404-408

https://www.academia.edu/238337/Coyle_EF_Hopper_MK_Coggan_AR._Maximal_oxygen_uptake_relative_to_plasma_volume_expansion._Int_J_Sports_Med_1990_11_116-119

 

[Merckx index]

Increases in blood volume tend to decrease submaximal and maximal heart rates,

OK, so cardiac output does increase with increasing blood volume, but this is the result of an increase in stroke volume rather than heart rate. I take it the increase in stroke volume compensates for the decrease in heart rate (the increase in output was not significant in your study, but I have seen studies where it was). Also, this establishes, as shown in the first of your papers linked, that under some conditions a HT increase can actually be accompanied by an increase, not decrease, in heart rate. That suggests that EPO would be more likely to increase than decrease heart rate, though the conditions would be somewhat different from reversing plasma expansion.

 

[sniper]

I wont' pretend to know a lot about the scientific aspect of EPO usage but there are several anecdotal accounts of a drop in both resting and max heart rates through the interwebs. You probably won't find a lot of research on as most of the data is locked away on Ferrari's hard drive.
[/quote]lol! My thoughts exactly.

These are areas which sports science should really delve into and prioritise.

 

[thehog]

I wont' pretend to know a lot about the scientific aspect of EPO usage but there are several anecdotal accounts of a drop in both resting and max heart rates through the interwebs. You probably won't find a lot of research on as most of the data is locked away on Ferrari's hard drive.

lol! My thoughts exactly.

These are areas which sports science should really delve into and prioritise.

I've spoken to cyclists who have said exactly the same. That sub maximum and maximum changes significantly during EPO use. Its also well documented on sites where users going into detail on dosages and changes in the physiology.

I'd happy to be shown different from a scientific perspective.

 

[acoggan]

I wont' pretend to know a lot about the scientific aspect of EPO usage but there are several anecdotal accounts of a drop in both resting and max heart rates through the interwebs. You probably won't find a lot of research on as most of the data is locked away on Ferrari's hard drive.

lol! My thoughts exactly.

These are areas which sports science should really delve into and prioritise.[/quote]

Unless you're specifically interested in optimizing doping regimens or enhancing anti-doping efforts, such research wouldn't be particularly novel or impactful. That is, the effects of alterations in hematocrit on VO2max, etc., are already well-established, so why try to reinvent the wheel?

 

[red_flanders]

Re: Re:

(snip)
Let's go back to the facts from July 2015 before Froome agreed to undergo testing:
(snip)

That's nice but you just left out the crucial parts of the interview.
The three preceding paragraphs read:

A starting point would be at the beginning of the season when Froome is starting his training, with a second possible test in the build-up towards peak form, so between the Criterium du Dauphine and the Tour de France. Tests later in the season, including the winter, would also help to create a better testing sample.

The reason for multiple tests is simple, Tucker says. The tests carried out by Ed Coyle on Lance Armstrong during the Texan’s career were carried out over wide period of time, “but you could tell from that data and that there were fluctuations based off if he was treated in season or out of season. Even just doing a test is potentially misleading if you don’t get the timing right. You would have to get the test done at exactly the moment when you wanted to analyse the performance, which is to say around the Tour de France.

“But also longitudally, because tracking changes is as important as establishing a single baseline. Otherwise you are in danger of setting up a circular argument.”
(http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/will-independent-testing-work-for-chris-froome/)

So, in sum, a one-time-in-the-season physiological testing is *clearly not* what Ross asked Sky/Froome to do.
In fact, to get a better idea of what Ross did ask for, we can again draw on the same article, a few paragraphs down:

Here are several key areas Froome could be transparent over.

· Several sets of independent lab tests carried out through a season by an independent tester or testing body with no links to Team Sky, British Cycling or a national federation.
· Full disclosure of all medication including TUEs taken and prescribed since 2010 – the date from which Froome joined Team Sky.
· Full power to weight data released to an independent body for analysis – again from 2010 onwards. The data released in 2013 did not complete the picture.
· Conduct a full asthma examination to prove that the use of current medication is required, along with any relevant backdated prescriptions.
· Provide all Biological Passport data to an independent body.
(http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/will-independent-testing-work-for-chris-froome/)

As you'll agree, none of these five points have been met by the testing you and GSK did on Froome.
Now, I'm not saying that that's your fault, because as you say you had a 'mandate' given to you by Froome.
Nonetheless, I'm curious what you think when Froome is quoted in the media as saying "As a clean athlete, what more can I do?"
In your view, is he flat out lying there or should we simply assume he's not the brightest bulb?

(also, in your capacity as a member of SA antidoping, maybe you could address those five points and tell us if you agree or not?)

Moving on, you mention Grappe.
Now, what Grappe did was analyze a set of power files given to him by Sky, but pertaining only to the *post*-Vuelta-2011 period.
Honest question: what were your thoughts when you read about that?
Mine were "Are they taking the absolute piss?"

Back to your work on Froome.
As for the 'independence' of the GSK researchers, the following can still be found on the GSK website:

The GSK Human Performance Lab will be submitting these and additional data for publication in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Team Sky is proud to ride clean and win clean and they were fully behind Froome’s desire to visit the lab.
https://www.google.pl/search?q=The+GSK+Human+Performance+Lab+will+be+submitting+these+and+additional+data+for+publication+in+a+peer-reviewed+scientific+journal.+Team+Sky+%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b-ab&gfe_rd=cr&ei=driwV5WCOOuk8wfJu7PgDA

Don't you think that that is massively inapproriate?

Final thingie: Ironhead Slims just asked you "why continue that day without heart rate measurement?"
How can you possibly avoid answering this question by invoking 'the mandate'? That's like pleading the fifth.
Mind: when you and GSK did the testing on Froome, the Ventoux 2013 file had already been leaked into the press, and so you and everybody involved in the testing knew that (max) heart rate measurements were going to be of increased interest. So again: why continue that day without heart rate measurement?

Was any of this addressed? I didn't see it.

 

[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?

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"

Sorry for the late reply, this is why I don't engage much in popular threads as they move on so fast!

The problem here is people either rubbishing the work because of this missing data or claiming it was omitted on purpose and demanding it should have been re-done without having a coherent argument as to why. You say you don't know what it would show but I'm not asking what his heart rate data would have been, I'm asking what questions having that information would have answered that aren't answered by the other data? The obvious one is comparison to the leaked files but that has lots of problems. Heart rate can vary based on many factors, I'm constantly told this by my more race-minded club mates as they try to persuade me that a power meter would be useful for my training. Doping is one of many things that can do this of course but a discrepancy in the values has many other explanations considering how different the conditions were between the two situations. There is data there for the submaximal test and Jeroen has explained how that falls in line with what was previously reported. I have no opinion on that, it's not my area, but it appears that heart rate data would only be useful for confirmation in this case. If people are going to say that the experiment is flawed due to this omission they need a reason why, not just "because". Of course, this was published in a journal so if any of you have a real problem with it you can actually write to them, explain why and ask for an explanation.

Whether the experiment should have been started over again I have no real opinion on. I would point out that not all data collected during an experiment is considered essential and loss of some data points happens in all branches of science and is either accounted for or causes a repeat. None of us have any idea of how the logistics of reorganising an experiment would have gone and the timing was clearly meant to be as close to the end of the Tour as possible. Of course, will interesting, this data comes no where near answering the questions most of us in the clinic really want answered and it never could.

 

[thehog]

I'm with Swart on this one. You can't restart the test as the remaining data would then becomes compromised. The onset of lactate as already occurred, the test subject has fatigued. Anything done afterwards would have to mention the fact that the test begin for x period, stopped and restarted. Better to lose one data point than have all data points with an asterisk.

Perhaps more Heinsberg principle;

Historically, the uncertainty principle has been confused with a somewhat similar effect in physics, called the observer effect, which notes that measurements of certain systems cannot be made without affecting the systems. Heisenberg offered such an observer effect at the quantum level as a physical "explanation" of quantum uncertainty. It has since become clear, however, that the uncertainty principle is inherent in the properties of all wave-like systems, and that it arises in quantum mechanics simply due to the matter wave nature of all quantum objects.

In science, the term observer effect refers to changes that the act of observation will make on a phenomenon being observed. This is often the result of instruments that, by necessity, alter the state of what they measure in some manner. A commonplace example is checking the pressure in an automobile tire; this is difficult to do without letting out some of the air, thus changing the pressure. This effect can be observed in many domains of physics and can often be reduced to insignificance by using better instruments or observation techniques.

 

[sniper]

^agreed. And some fair points also by KB.

Just for the record, in response to KB, I don't remember anybody *claiming* it was omitted on purpose. Rather, that possibility has been raised without anyone *claiming* it happened.
And to be fair, one would be utterly foolish not to consider the possibility seeing (a) how the max heart rate played a role in the Ventoux discussion that preceded the testing and (b) how afwully compromised (viz. biased towards showing Sky are clean) the GSK researchers are.
As to point (b), this is from the GSK website:

The GSK Human Performance Lab will be submitting these and additional data for publication in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Team Sky is proud to ride clean and win clean and they were fully behind Froome’s desire to visit the lab
https://www.gskhpl.com/news/partnerships/chris-froome-visits-hpl/

That single phrase puts into doubt the objectivity and thus validity of the entire exercise.
And since this bias has not been declared, we're dealing with scientific fraud here, too. (Not to mention the reviewers of the journal being at fault for overlooking the conflict of interest)
If I were Swart, I'd be furious.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

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 find it odd there are people still stuck in a paradigm where they think HR data matters wrt assessing athletic performance.

When you have data that does matter (i.e. power), what your HR does is essentially irrelevant and adds no real insight. You can either produce the power or you can't.

 

[King Boonen]

Re:

^agreed. And some fair points also by KB.

Just for the record, in response to KB, I don't remember anybody *claiming* it was omitted on purpose. Rather, that possibility has been raised without anyone *claiming* it happened.

Ah yes, the usual clinic tactic of phrasing something as a question and then claiming it is innocent:

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

Sorry but no, that is an extremely serious allegation however you wish to frame it and it's no acceptable to just hide it behind a question mark.

And to be fair, one would be utterly foolish not to consider the possibility seeing (a) how the max heart rate played a role in the Ventoux discussion that preceded the testing and (b) how afwully compromised (viz. biased towards showing Sky are clean) the GSK researchers are.
As to point (b), this is from the GSK website:

The GSK Human Performance Lab will be submitting these and additional data for publication in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Team Sky is proud to ride clean and win clean and they were fully behind Froome’s desire to visit the lab
https://www.gskhpl.com/news/partnerships/chris-froome-visits-hpl/

That single phrase puts into doubt the objectivity and thus validity of the entire exercise.
And since this bias has not been declared, we're dealing with scientific fraud here, too. (Not to mention the reviewers of the journal being at fault for overlooking the conflict of interest)
If I were Swart, I'd be furious.

If you believe that this is scientific fraud, and again that is an extremely serious allegation, then you can, of course, report it to the journal and I would urge you to do so.

Of course, the sentence that seems to be the problem doesn't mention GSK at all and they take no position on the cleanliness of Team Sky or Froome from what I can see on the linked web page. It only attributes to Team Sky a position they stand behind again and again in the media.

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

(snip)
Let's go back to the facts from July 2015 before Froome agreed to undergo testing:
(snip)

That's nice but you just left out the crucial parts of the interview.
The three preceding paragraphs read:

A starting point would be at the beginning of the season when Froome is starting his training, with a second possible test in the build-up towards peak form, so between the Criterium du Dauphine and the Tour de France. Tests later in the season, including the winter, would also help to create a better testing sample.

The reason for multiple tests is simple, Tucker says. The tests carried out by Ed Coyle on Lance Armstrong during the Texan’s career were carried out over wide period of time, “but you could tell from that data and that there were fluctuations based off if he was treated in season or out of season. Even just doing a test is potentially misleading if you don’t get the timing right. You would have to get the test done at exactly the moment when you wanted to analyse the performance, which is to say around the Tour de France.

“But also longitudally, because tracking changes is as important as establishing a single baseline. Otherwise you are in danger of setting up a circular argument.”
(http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/will-independent-testing-work-for-chris-froome/)

So, in sum, a one-time-in-the-season physiological testing is *clearly not* what Ross asked Sky/Froome to do.
In fact, to get a better idea of what Ross did ask for, we can again draw on the same article, a few paragraphs down:

Here are several key areas Froome could be transparent over.

· Several sets of independent lab tests carried out through a season by an independent tester or testing body with no links to Team Sky, British Cycling or a national federation.
· Full disclosure of all medication including TUEs taken and prescribed since 2010 – the date from which Froome joined Team Sky.
· Full power to weight data released to an independent body for analysis – again from 2010 onwards. The data released in 2013 did not complete the picture.
· Conduct a full asthma examination to prove that the use of current medication is required, along with any relevant backdated prescriptions.
· Provide all Biological Passport data to an independent body.
(http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/will-independent-testing-work-for-chris-froome/)

As you'll agree, none of these five points have been met by the testing you and GSK did on Froome.
Now, I'm not saying that that's your fault, because as you say you had a 'mandate' given to you by Froome.
Nonetheless, I'm curious what you think when Froome is quoted in the media as saying "As a clean athlete, what more can I do?"
In your view, is he flat out lying there or should we simply assume he's not the brightest bulb?

(also, in your capacity as a member of SA antidoping, maybe you could address those five points and tell us if you agree or not?)

Moving on, you mention Grappe.
Now, what Grappe did was analyze a set of power files given to him by Sky, but pertaining only to the *post*-Vuelta-2011 period.
Honest question: what were your thoughts when you read about that?
Mine were "Are they taking the absolute piss?"

Back to your work on Froome.
As for the 'independence' of the GSK researchers, the following can still be found on the GSK website:

The GSK Human Performance Lab will be submitting these and additional data for publication in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Team Sky is proud to ride clean and win clean and they were fully behind Froome’s desire to visit the lab.
https://www.google.pl/search?q=The+GSK+Human+Performance+Lab+will+be+submitting+these+and+additional+data+for+publication+in+a+peer-reviewed+scientific+journal.+Team+Sky+%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b-ab&gfe_rd=cr&ei=driwV5WCOOuk8wfJu7PgDA

Don't you think that that is massively inapproriate?

Final thingie: Ironhead Slims just asked you "why continue that day without heart rate measurement?"
How can you possibly avoid answering this question by invoking 'the mandate'? That's like pleading the fifth.
Mind: when you and GSK did the testing on Froome, the Ventoux 2013 file had already been leaked into the press, and so you and everybody involved in the testing knew that (max) heart rate measurements were going to be of increased interest. So again: why continue that day without heart rate measurement?

Was any of this addressed? I didn't see it.

No none it was addressed. And i doubt it will be.

Great post sniper.

 

[acoggan]

Re: Re:

the usual clinic tactic of phrasing something as a question and then claiming it is innocent

#PeopleAreSaying ?

Here's my $0.02 on the maximal heart rate data, or lack thereof: I completely agree with Jeroen that is completely irrelevant, and I wouldn't have stopped or repeated the test due to the inability to obtain such data. The simple facts are:

1) maximal heart rate varies widely between individuals;

2) unless you are, e.g., a patient with heart failure who is chronotropically incomptent, there is essentially no relationship between maximal heart rate and athletic performance, and:

3) Froome's low submaximal heart rates during the testing already tell you that his max can't be that high, because there is an essentially linear relationship between heart rate and exercise intensity (at least/especially under laboratory conditions).

To suggest that Jeroen suppressed the data is a ridiculous claim, not only for the reasons listed above but also because of all of the far-more-informative data that were presented. And yet, this is the kind of tin-foil-hat-wearing-thinking that is all too common in this forum, which makes it readily apparent why people like Brailsford will derisively refer to "pseudoscientists."

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

the usual clinic tactic of phrasing something as a question and then claiming it is innocent

#PeopleAreSaying ?

Here's my $0.02 on the maximal heart rate data, or lack thereof: I completely agree with Jeroen that is completely irrelevant, and I wouldn't have stopped or repeated the test due to the inability to obtain such data. The simple facts are:

1) maximal heart rate varies widely between individuals;

2) unless you are, e.g., a patient with heart failure who is chronotropically incomptent, there is essentially no relationship between maximal heart rate and athletic performance, and:

3) Froome's low submaximal heart rates during the testing already tell you that his max can't be that high, because there is an essentially linear relationship between heart rate and exercise intensity (at least/especially under laboratory conditions).

To suggest that Jeroen suppressed the data is a ridiculous claim, not only for the reasons listed above but also because of all of the far-more-informative data that were presented. And yet, this is the kind of tin-foil-hat-wearing-thinking that is all too common in this forum, which makes it readily apparent why people like Brailsford will derisively refer to "pseudoscientists."

And so the accusations of tin-foil-hattery again when simple questions only require simple answers.

As for Brailsford, master of deceit and lies. Take his comments with a pinch of salt.

 

[acoggan]

Re: Re:

And so the accusations of tin-foil-hattery again

In this case, the shoe fits as well as Cinderella's slipper.

simple questions only require simple answers.

The (non-)question has been answered; it's just that conspiracy theorists here refuse to accept it.

 

[sniper]

@acoggan:
Your thought process is flawed at the very first step, the step where for some reason you take as a fact that indeed they weren't able to measure his max heart rate. Fact is: we don't know.
Now, we could have been much more positive about this if there weren't such blatant biases glaring in the background (see GSK website).

As you hopefully agree, undeclared biases are not to be trivialized.
In cases of undeclared biases - in any branch of science - the published data are to be taken with caution.
And, again I hope you agree, the very same is true for *the lack* of data.
Pharmaceutical and environmental studies provide paradigm examples of data deliberately left out due to underlying biases.

So, if you have not yet totally burried your ethical and scientific standards, you should be skeptical of both the data presented, as much as of the data *not* presented, in the Froome report.

I agree with the rest of your post (in a same vein as what theHog and KB argue above): if indeed they weren't able to measure max heart rate due to technical failure, there would have been no reason to repeat the tests just to get the max heart rate. (I said otherwise previously, and I take that back)

 

[djpbaltimore]

Re:

^agreed. And some fair points also by KB.

Just for the record, in response to KB, I don't remember anybody *claiming* it was omitted on purpose. Rather, that possibility has been raised without anyone *claiming* it happened.
And to be fair, one would be utterly foolish not to consider the possibility seeing (a) how the max heart rate played a role in the Ventoux discussion that preceded the testing and (b) how afwully compromised (viz. biased towards showing Sky are clean) the GSK researchers are.
As to point (b), this is from the GSK website:

The GSK Human Performance Lab will be submitting these and additional data for publication in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Team Sky is proud to ride clean and win clean and they were fully behind Froome’s desire to visit the lab
https://www.gskhpl.com/news/partnerships/chris-froome-visits-hpl/

That single phrase puts into doubt the objectivity and thus validity of the entire exercise.
And since this bias has not been declared, we're dealing with scientific fraud here, too. (Not to mention the reviewers of the journal being at fault for overlooking the conflict of interest)
If I were Swart, I'd be furious.

This is not an example of scientific fraud IMO. You would have to first prove that one of the authors had an undeclared bias. And working for an organization with a blurb on a webpage does not fulfill that requirement. For example, I am not responsible for everything written on my university's webpage.

The job of the reviewer is judge the merits of the science. The editor is the one in charge of publication.

 

[thehog]

Re:

@acoggan:
Your thought process is flawed at the very first step, the step where for some reason you take as a fact that indeed they weren't able to measure his max heart rate. Fact is: we don't know.
Now, we could have been much more positive about this if there weren't such blatant biases glaring in the background (see GSK website).

As you hopefully agree, undeclared biases are not to be trivialized.
In cases of undeclared biases - in any branch of science - the published data are to be taken with caution.
And, again I hope you agree, the very same is true for *the lack* of data.
Pharmaceutical and environmental studies provide paradigm examples of data deliberately left out due to underlying biases.

So, if you have not yet totally burried your ethical and scientific standards, you should be skeptical of both the data presented, as much as of the data *not* presented, in the Froome report.

I agree with the rest of your post (in a same vein as what theHog and KB argue above): if indeed they weren't able to measure max heart rate due to technical failure, there would have been no reason to repeat the tests just to get the max heart rate. (I said otherwise previously, and I take that back)

If the max heart rate was 200 or 165 it doesn't say much at all, next to nothing.

The only interest is matching it with the leaked video. Which Swart has already stated that they captured sub maximal HR. If you drew a liner progression line through that data to predict max heart rate then it would be similar to what was seen in the video.

I think based on that fact is discounts anything nefarious with the lack of that specific data point.

I could be wrong, Swart may have put a banana skin under the HR strap and it slipped off on purpose but I doubt it.

 

[sniper]

djpbaltimore:
For example, I am not responsible for everything written on my university's webpage.

But this is not just 'anything written on the GSK webpage'. This is quite a specific quote relating to the Froome testing. There is a direct link made by that quote between Froome's testing at the GSK lab on the one hand, and 'Sky being proud to ride clean' on the other.
Here it is again: Team Sky is proud to ride clean and win clean and they were fully behind Froome’s desire to visit the lab
I'm frankly baffled by it. The more so considering one of the GSK guys works for UKAD.
The quote suggests some kind of direct link between Sky and GSK. (And recall in this context Brailsford's statement that the GSK researchers were old friends of his.)
Anybody with a grain of scientific ethos should have big question marks here.

djpbaltimore:
The job of the reviewer is judge the merits of the science. The editor is the one in charge of publication.

point taken and conceded.