The Froome Files, test data only thread

[thehog]

I wasn't responding to you. I was replying to another poster

So? Your statement was still incorrect.

Good grief, you really will just keep chopping up the posts and replying. We got it, you don't think heart rate is relevant. Anything more you need to get off your chest?

 

[Irondan]

Let's all take a deep breath and relax....

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

The 2007 (fax) data lines up with the 2015 test data. They are eight years apart. Because we have a visual on the race performance between 2008 and 2011, which was extremely poor, even in straight line flat time trials it makes one question the veracity of the 2007 data and want to see validated statistics from 08 and august 2011.

I wouldn't say all his results were extremely poor, ok he wasn't world beating but he finished the TDF and came in a fairly decent position in an ITT at the end of it in that period. That isn't bad for someone was pretty clueless when it comes to 'race craft' and was there as a dom.

He was a dom in the Tour in 2008? Who was he riding for? He was just "there".

The ITT in 2008 was the final stage prior to the Champs. A lot of the field had dropped out, preparing for the Olympics or saving themselves - over 30 riders had dropped out by the Stage 20 ITT. That's 20% of the field!

Not sure why you pin your hopes on that one performance like it demonstrates Froome was always a talent. It really doesn't say anything at all.

 

[bigcog]

Re: Re:

The 2007 (fax) data lines up with the 2015 test data. They are eight years apart. Because we have a visual on the race performance between 2008 and 2011, which was extremely poor, even in straight line flat time trials it makes one question the veracity of the 2007 data and want to see validated statistics from 08 and august 2011.

I wouldn't say all his results were extremely poor, ok he wasn't world beating but he finished the TDF and came in a fairly decent position in an ITT at the end of it in that period. That isn't bad for someone was pretty clueless when it comes to 'race craft' and was there as a dom.

He was a dom in the Tour in 2008? Who was he riding for? He was just "there".

The ITT in 2008 was the final stage prior to the Champs. A lot of the field had dropped out, preparing for the Olympics or saving themselves - over 30 riders had dropped out by the Stage 20 ITT. That's 20% of the field!

Not sure why you pin your hopes on that one performance like it demonstrates Froome was always a talent. It really doesn't say anything at all.

What would you expect of some riding their first grand tour in his first year as a pro with BarloWorld ?

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

The 2007 (fax) data lines up with the 2015 test data. They are eight years apart. Because we have a visual on the race performance between 2008 and 2011, which was extremely poor, even in straight line flat time trials it makes one question the veracity of the 2007 data and want to see validated statistics from 08 and august 2011.

I wouldn't say all his results were extremely poor, ok he wasn't world beating but he finished the TDF and came in a fairly decent position in an ITT at the end of it in that period. That isn't bad for someone was pretty clueless when it comes to 'race craft' and was there as a dom.

He was a dom in the Tour in 2008? Who was he riding for? He was just "there".

The ITT in 2008 was the final stage prior to the Champs. A lot of the field had dropped out, preparing for the Olympics or saving themselves - over 30 riders had dropped out by the Stage 20 ITT. That's 20% of the field!

Not sure why you pin your hopes on that one performance like it demonstrates Froome was always a talent. It really doesn't say anything at all.

What would you expect of some riding their first grand tour in his first year as a pro with BarloWorld ?

I wouldn't expect anything. However, I wouldn't hang on to one result as some form of KPI of future performances that came about overnight in September 2011 (3 years later).

 

[Merckx index]

Re: Re:

physiological tests like VO2max can't be used to answer that question.

Suppose Froome were tested repeatedly, and the consistent result was that he was not capable of sustaining more than 5.5 watts/kg. Indeed, suppose the 2007 FAX data were actually what were recorded by Jeroen in 2015: a 75-76 kg rider capable of 420 watts at threshold. Yet at the same time, he was winning key climbs at over 6.0 watts/kg.

Per WADA rules, that wouldn’t be enough to sanction him. That’s fair enough—you can always come up with alternative explanations for the discrepancy--but I think any reasonable person would know which way the wind was blowing. And I don’t mean a tailwind (maybe its energetic equivalent, though).

I think it’s important to emphasize that when AC, Alex, or anyone else says physiological data can never be used to prove doping, the strength of their claim derives from the fact that the criterion for proof is set very high, to avoid false positives. It doesn’t necessarily mean that physiological data can’t be used to show that doping is the most likely explanation, and even to estimate how likely. There have been lots of EPO gels that scream out doping, but they don’t meet the strict criteria necessary for a sanction. You can skate if your T/E is 3.5, though well over 90% of all young men have a ratio below that.

If physiologists want to use parameters like V02max, GE and threshold to estimate what power riders can sustain—if these lab measurements are actually going to have practical value for riders—then of course they have relevance to doping. You can’t argue that lab tests have some predictive value for performance while at the same time denying they’re relevant to performance enhancement. Any information pertinent to performance is also pertinent to performance enhancement. It’s just a matter of significance levels at this point.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Added to this heart rate on its own is unique to the individual. So whether its x or y doesn't really matter. The only interest held was the comparison to the leaked video. And because we have the submaximal data the predicted max would fairly much line up with the footage.

And as has been pointed out a bazillion times, because of the variable nature of HR response in an individual to a vast array of things, such a comparison is pretty meaningless and provides no insight into performance or comparisons of performance (lab v road race!! LOL), let alone anything that might shed light on one's doping status.

You might wonder why this keeps getting repeated? It's because you and others keep bringing it up.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Re: Re:

physiological tests like VO2max can't be used to answer that question.

Suppose Froome were tested repeatedly, and the consistent result was that he was not capable of sustaining more than 5.5 watts/kg. Indeed, suppose the 2007 FAX data were actually what were recorded by Jeroen in 2015: a 75-76 kg rider capable of 420 watts at threshold. Yet at the same time, he was winning key climbs at over 6.0 watts/kg.

Per WADA rules, that wouldn’t be enough to sanction him. That’s fair enough—you can always come up with alternative explanations for the discrepancy--but I think any reasonable person would know which way the wind was blowing. And I don’t mean a tailwind (maybe its energetic equivalent, though).

I think it’s important to emphasize that when AC, Alex, or anyone else says physiological data can never be used to prove doping, the strength of their claim derives from the fact that the criterion for proof is set very high, to avoid false positives. It doesn’t necessarily mean that physiological data can’t be used to show that doping is the most likely explanation, and even to estimate how likely. There have been lots of EPO gels that scream out doping, but they don’t meet the strict criteria necessary for a sanction. You can skate if your T/E is 3.5, though well over 90% of all young men have a ratio below that.

If physiologists want to use parameters like V02max, GE and threshold to estimate what power riders can sustain—if these lab measurements are actually going to have practical value for riders—then of course they have relevance to doping. You can’t argue that lab tests have some predictive value for performance while at the same time denying they’re relevant to performance enhancement. Any information pertinent to performance is also pertinent to performance enhancement. It’s just a matter of significance levels at this point.

The problem is that the size of performance change is not only explainable by doping.

 

[ScienceIsCool]

Re: Re:

What would you expect of some riding their first grand tour in his first year as a pro with BarloWorld ?

In 1984, Greg Lemond finished 10th in his very first GT time trial on stage 7 of the Tour de France. He finished 2:08 back from Fignon after 67 km. On the 22nd stage of that Tour he placed 4th in a 51 km time trial, only 41 seconds back. He was riding as a domestique for Fignon for the powerhouse Renault-Elf. He was 23 years old.

This is what a future Tour winner used to look like. A Barloworld washout? Not so much.

John Swanson

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

What would you expect of some riding their first grand tour in his first year as a pro with BarloWorld ?

In 1984, Greg Lemond finished 10th in his very first GT time trial on stage 7 of the Tour de France. He finished 2:08 back from Fignon after 67 km. On the 22nd stage of that Tour he placed 4th in a 51 km time trial, only 41 seconds back. He was riding as a domestique for Fignon for the powerhouse Renault-Elf. He was 23 years old.

This is what a future Tour winner used to look like. A Barloworld washout? Not so much.

John Swanson

Back to my actual post;

The ITT in 2008 was the final stage prior to the Champs. A lot of the field had dropped out, preparing for the Olympics or saving themselves - over 30 riders had dropped out by the Stage 20 ITT. That's 20% of the field!

On stage 7 in 1984 how many riders had dropped out? How far did LeMond finish back after 67km? 2 minutes with the full field present.

Froome on Stage 20? 53km. Froome lost over 3 minutes with 20% of the field already dropped out.

Where did Froome finish on Stage 4 ITT with the entire field still in the race? 31st. 2 minutes back.

The devil is in the detail.

 

[Jeroen Swart]

Re: Re:

We can see from the 2007 data that he already had the ability to produce the required power output.

Analysing the data from pre 2011 will demonstrate either:

a) an inability to deliver the same output in competition

OR

b) an inability to deliver the same output in training AND competition

OR

c) an inability to reproduce the performances reliably.

None of the above will tell you why that changed. It doesn't tell the story.

Suppose the pre-2011 power files consistently reveal power much less than what the 2007 FAX claims. Wouldn’t that tend to cast doubt on the veracity of that 2007 data? I’m not accusing anyone of intentionally fabricating those data, but if you have that one data point in 2007 contradicted by reams of data since, wouldn’t one begin to question the 2007 data?

In that scenario, which is more likely: a consistent inability to match lab results, or some mistake in those results? I myself don’t pretend to know, but those who have raced might weigh in if they’re aware of a precedent for such a discrepancy. Has anyone ever heard of a rider whose lab tests indicated a certain level of power, but was never able to get close to this power on the road, over a period of several years?

If there is this discrepancy between the 2007 data and the pre-2011 power files, and we question the former, other questions become easier to answer. Why did none of Froome’s teams recognize his extraordinary potential? Because it wasn’t that extraordinary. How did he transform in 2011? By increasing his V02max/power as well as, most likely, losing some weight. The pre-2011 data should certainly speak to the weight question, which by itself would be important to clarify.

So that is one conceivable conclusion that might be reached from analysis of pre-2011 power files. Those files, though, might not be that clear-cut. Maybe sometimes he did match or at least closely approach the 2007 lab results. I think this is what Jeroen is referring to in scenario c). In that case, the latter would become far more believable, and we now have some more difficult questions, why his potential was not recognized, and how he transformed.

But before tackling those questions, note that this shows why having those pre-2011 data is so important. They can help confirm the 2007 FAX, or not. They also clarify what other questions need to be asked related to the relationship of Froome pre- vs. post-2011. So I can’t agree with anyone who thinks releasing the pre-2011 power files is not important. Again, let's stop framing the issue as all-or-none, doping or not doping, and see what the data suggest first.

Thanks for the insight and actually posting a hypothesis.

There are some excellent points.

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

What would you expect of some riding their first grand tour in his first year as a pro with BarloWorld ?

In 1984, Greg Lemond finished 10th in his very first GT time trial on stage 7 of the Tour de France. He finished 2:08 back from Fignon after 67 km. On the 22nd stage of that Tour he placed 4th in a 51 km time trial, only 41 seconds back. He was riding as a domestique for Fignon for the powerhouse Renault-Elf. He was 23 years old.

This is what a future Tour winner used to look like. A Barloworld washout? Not so much.

John Swanson

Random riders and their consecutive GT results:

Froome:

83 / 34 / 2

Dumoulin:

41 / 33 / 6

Yates:

82 / 50 / 4

Meintjies:

55 / 10 / 8

Aru:

42 / 3

Bardet:

15 / 6 / 9 / 2

Quintana

36 /2 / 1

You should maybe add their ages there, makes the comparison more clear

And their weights, maybe they all 'just lost the fat'?

Hasten to say, Froome's other results outside of GT vs his other competitors like Quintana doesn't compete at all. But then you have the Badzhilla paradigm to explain that one.

Never ending, circular argument.

 

[gillan1969]

Re: Re:

What would you expect of some riding their first grand tour in his first year as a pro with BarloWorld ?

In 1984, Greg Lemond finished 10th in his very first GT time trial on stage 7 of the Tour de France. He finished 2:08 back from Fignon after 67 km. On the 22nd stage of that Tour he placed 4th in a 51 km time trial, only 41 seconds back. He was riding as a domestique for Fignon for the powerhouse Renault-Elf. He was 23 years old.

This is what a future Tour winner used to look like. A Barloworld washout? Not so much.

John Swanson

Random riders and their consecutive GT results:

Froome:

83 / 34 / 2

Dumoulin:

41 / 33 / 6

Yates:

82 / 50 / 4

Meintjies:

55 / 10 / 8

Aru:

42 / 3

Bardet:

15 / 6 / 9 / 2

Quintana

36 /2 / 1

You should maybe add their ages there, makes the comparison more clear

And their weights, maybe they all 'just lost the fat'?

Hasten to say, Froome's other results outside of GT vs his other competitors like Quintana doesn't compete at all. But then you have the Badzhilla paradigm to explain that one.

Never ending, circular argument.

straightforwad

he was mediocre, then he was fantastic (overnight)

the assumption must be (knowing what we know about procycling) he doped unless proven otherwise

the proof for otherwise lies in a one page fax unearthed by the subjects' wife and for whom no one has seen the data which lies behind it..

 

[Jeroen Swart]

Re: Re:

What would you expect of some riding their first grand tour in his first year as a pro with BarloWorld ?

In 1984, Greg Lemond finished 10th in his very first GT time trial on stage 7 of the Tour de France. He finished 2:08 back from Fignon after 67 km. On the 22nd stage of that Tour he placed 4th in a 51 km time trial, only 41 seconds back. He was riding as a domestique for Fignon for the powerhouse Renault-Elf. He was 23 years old.

This is what a future Tour winner used to look like. A Barloworld washout? Not so much.

John Swanson

Random riders and their consecutive GT results:

Froome:

83 / 34 / 2

Dumoulin:

41 / 33 / 6

Yates:

82 / 50 / 4

Meintjies:

55 / 10 / 8

Aru:

42 / 3

Bardet:

15 / 6 / 9 / 2

Quintana

36 /2 / 1

You should maybe add their ages there, makes the comparison more clear

And their weights, maybe they all 'just lost the fat'?

Hasten to say, Froome's other results outside of GT vs his other competitors like Quintana doesn't compete at all. But then you have the Badzhilla paradigm to explain that one.

Never ending, circular argument.

You hit the nail on the hammer with that last point.

 

[thehog]

And their weights, maybe they all 'just lost the fat'?

Hasten to say, Froome's other results outside of GT vs his other competitors like Quintana doesn't compete at all. But then you have the Badzhilla paradigm to explain that one.

Never ending, circular argument.

You hit the nail on the hammer with that last point.

Which would make one wonder why you concluded, "he just lost the fat" as the fait accompli

 

[King Boonen]

This discussion has the so far past the test data now it's not even funny.

 

[Irondan]

I'm going to go back through and delete all the off topic posts and deal with them accordingly.

Any more off-topic comments in this thread will be met with an immediate ban.

 

[Irondan]

Re: Re:

I'm going to go back through and delete all the off topic posts and deal with them accordingly.

Any more off-topic comments in this thread will be met with an immediate ban.

Why not close it for a few days, to give mods a chance to move, rather than delete posts?

Some of the posts are ok and deserve to remain in the other Froome thread/s.

It's not up to mods to chase comments around the forum to put them in the proper threads. Members know that if they post off topic they run the risk of having their comments deleted.

Please continue any more comments about moderation in the moderators thread.

TIA

 

[Le breton]

Today it was raining, so I read most contributions to this thread starting August 11th.

I must say it was quite an ordeal, in particular due to the irrelevant and often silly posts, in particular (but unfortunately not only) by Sniper, who I presume is a disappointed L.A. fan and appears to be a self-appointed missionary trying to prove that other TdF winners are just as bad (I have read on other threads his unsubstantiated diatribes against LeMond).

I must say I am full of admiration for the fortitude of Alex in the first days and Jeroen later on as they dutifully countered even the stupidest posts.

Ross Tucker explained why he is for now staying out of the discussion, but I certainly expect soon some major contribution from him on his website.

Andy Coggan remained extremely conventional and didn't rock the boat.

Interesting comments from others, like Merckx index, but I was surprised by some his questions with obvious answers.

Nobody commented on the graph posted by The Hog showing that in the 2011 Vuelta Froome maxed at 169 bpm in one of the TTs, although it would seem to me to, at least partially, answer the (irrelevant?) question often raised in the discussion about Froome's max HR.

Nobody commented on the erroneous (silly?/disingenuous?) statement from the paper that Froome would benefit from a supposedly unusual combination of both a high VO2 max coupled with a high GE where it matters (at about 80% of max power).
A GE of 23% (or 23.6%) seems to me perfectly average, similar to Boardman's (22.6% and VO2 max ~90 ml/mn.kg), or L.A. 23.1% at 400 watts.
Anyway, 23% is far from the ridiculously high 28% max value found by Lucia on one pro cyclist. (How come nobody tries to find out what went wrong in Lucia's lab? At CERN, when a team measured superluminal neutrinos they had a meeting with hundreds of physicists present and that team asked them to help them find out what went wrong). Why is Lucia's "work" even used in such a paper?

23% is even very far from the alleged 25% efficiency at high rev. by Grappe in L'Equipe in 2001 to justify the superior performance of L.A. when he climbed AdH just about as fast after a long mountain stage (~38:00) than he would 3 years later in a TT (37:36). But then 25%/23% = 1 + 8.7% . an 8-9% gain that approaches gains expected from well dosed blood doping. Anyway, since that article in L'Equipe in 2001 I have never been able to take Grappe seriously.

Some well respected posters here (Alex, Andy) look down on Vayer who does not have their academic credentials, but Vayer has in his files data they don't have : results of lab tests that document the power gains from Festina's doping procedures. (Before it was removed from the web, I saw but unfortunately didn't copy a stress test by Brochard which I roughly estimated at the time to correspond to about 100 ml/mn.kg).
Vayer is probably outrageous in his behavior and milking the doping issue ad nauseum, but that does not mean he does not know a thing or 2.

One interesting bit from the paper which I find EXTREMELY surprising is that Froome performed better in HH (hot, humid) conditions than in normal conditions. I'm waiting for a reasonable explanation as this is so counterintuitive if you consider how far down marathon performances are in HH conditions compared to cool/cold conditions. His fan wind speed was marathon's speed ~20 km/h.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Re:

Some well respected posters here (Alex, Andy) look down on Vayer who does not have their academic credentials

Just a point of clarification. I have no where near the academic credentials of Antoine Vayer (let alone Andy Coggan).

Of course I should ignore the personality and focus on the content, it's just that Vayer does seems to exaggerate much for personal publicity reasons and to me seems to not apply sufficiently rigorous standards I expect from an academic.

Well done on getting through it all!

 

[acoggan]

Re:

Nobody commented on the erroneous (silly?/disingenuous?) statement from the paper that Froome would benefit from a supposedly unusual combination of both a high VO2 max coupled with a high GE where it matters (at about 80% of max power).
A GE of 23% (or 23.6%) seems to me perfectly average, similar to Boardman's (22.6% and VO2 max ~90 ml/mn.kg), or L.A. 23.1% at 400 watts.

Agreed, it is not extremely high. However, if you buy the hypothesis that efficiency and VO2max are inversely related due to biological reasons (vs. simply due to selection), then it is worthy of comment.

Anyway, 23% is far from the ridiculously high 28% max value found by Lucia on one pro cyclist. (How come nobody tries to find out what went wrong in Lucia's lab? At CERN, when a team measured superluminal neutrinos they had a meeting with hundreds of physicists present and that team asked them to help them find out what went wrong). Why is Lucia's "work" even used in such a paper?

IIRC, Asker Jeukendrup wrote a letter-to-the-editor questioning the data (and in particular, the metabolic cart that was used), but the authors stood by their results, and since no obvious issues or causes were identified, the paper has stood.

Some well respected posters here (Alex, Andy) look down on Vayer who does not have their academic credentials, but Vayer has in his files data they don't have : results of lab tests that document the power gains from Festina's doping procedures.

I don't recall commenting on Vayer, at least aside from laughing at Alex's joke. That said, I'm confident that there's nothing in Vayer's files that would prove truly informative. in particular, it is well-established from published studies of autologous transfusions that the relative increase in VO2max is generally half the relative increase in hematocrit. It is also well-established based on other studies (including animal work by, e.g., George Brooks) that relative changes in exercise performance will tend to be somewhat less than the relative increase in VO2max. It is therefore fairly easy to put reasonable bounds on the potential effects of, e.g., EPO on performance.

One interesting bit from the paper which I find EXTREMELY surprising is that Froome performed better in HH (hot, humid) conditions than in normal conditions. I'm waiting for a reasonable explanation as this is so counterintuitive if you consider how far down marathon performances are in HH conditions compared to cool/cold conditions. His fan wind speed was marathon's speed ~20 km/h.

Are you referring to the fact that his efficiency was slightly higher during the 2nd test? I chalked that up to the well-known effects of thermal stress on fuel selection.

 

[70kmph]

The lab won't reveal how its done ... the alchemists secret

 

[acoggan]

Re:

The lab won't reveal how its done ... the alchemists secret

Are you sure you posted in the right thread?

 

[V3R1T4S]

Re:

One interesting bit from the paper which I find EXTREMELY surprising is that Froome performed better in HH (hot, humid) conditions than in normal conditions. I'm waiting for a reasonable explanation as this is so counterintuitive if you consider how far down marathon performances are in HH conditions compared to cool/cold conditions. His fan wind speed was marathon's speed ~20 km/h.

As long as the brain/core does not get too hot, an increase in ambient temperature should help shift the Hb-O2 curve to the right and increase the delivery of oxygen to working muscles, thus increasing available aerobic power.

 

[acoggan]

Re: Re:

One interesting bit from the paper which I find EXTREMELY surprising is that Froome performed better in HH (hot, humid) conditions than in normal conditions. I'm waiting for a reasonable explanation as this is so counterintuitive if you consider how far down marathon performances are in HH conditions compared to cool/cold conditions. His fan wind speed was marathon's speed ~20 km/h.

As long as the brain/core does not get too hot, an increase in ambient temperature should help shift the Hb-O2 curve to the right and increase the delivery of oxygen to working muscles, thus increasing available aerobic power.

1. Temperature of exercising muscle (and blood passing through it) already significantly exceeds core temperature.

2. Off-loading of O2 at the muscle is not limiting, in part due to the above but also due to the Bohr effect.

3. Regardless of #1 and #2, what you propose would result in a lower, not a higher, efficiency.