The Froome Files, test data only thread

[doperhopper]

expect new catchphrase from Sky: 500 physiological tests!

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Re: Re:

What you score is what you are, IMO. The rest is conjecture. I don't like the idea of manipulating numbers to fit an agenda.

Then just look at the absolute VO2max and absolute power comparisons and leave body fat/mass variations out of the mix.

The absolute VO2max values from the two test reports are only ~2% different.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

It's just too odd along with those faxes looking awfully suspect.

Well I don't know about others but when photocopying or scanning a printed page, or even printing a document using different printer/settings/computers, I often get different physical margins. Whose to say one doc was not a photocopy of the other? That would seem more plausible than deliberate falsehood via photoshop.

But without evidence either way, who can really say?

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Re: Re:

Definitely Osymetric chainrings on that picture!

I disagree, the chain rings look around but it's very difficult to tell for certain.

Yes he is using Osymetric rings:

Video of test: https://youtu.be/JzNIH3LSDMM

Interesting. So between the non-round rings resulting in overestimation of power and the fact that the cranks are "upstream" in the drivetrain, you'd expect those numbers to be somewhat higher than that reported by the CT. They were, however, nearly identical, which makes me doubt the absolute accuracy of either set of numbers. OTOH, they definitely seem to be in the right ballpark, so again not that big of a deal (after all, the point of the testing was to provide physiological, not performance, data).

I wondered same when I saw the CT. I think it's fine to be used to control the load, provided its slope has been previously tested and the workload or workload increase is as desired for the specific protocol.

Depending on the CT and how well the roll down calibration is done, its power measurement can be pretty good or a bit out - I know I get very good agreement between calibrated power meters (including several of my SRMs) and my CT power during MAP tests, to the extent that if testing someone without a power meter, I know my CT's data will be well within a margin of acceptable error. But I also have seen data from multiple CTs from days running a training centre and know the sort of variance possible.

But this data is from Stages power meter (left only or prototype dual sided?) equipped with non-circular rings and got same power as the CT?

Hard to know which is wrong!

Another test protocol question for the lab people to explore/explain.

 

[unclem0nty]

It's just too odd along with those faxes looking awfully suspect.

Well I don't know about others but when photocopying or scanning a printed page, or even printing a document using different printer/settings/computers, I often get different physical margins. Whose to say one doc was not a photocopy of the other? That would seem more plausible than deliberate falsehood via photoshop.

But without evidence either way, who can really say?

Pretty snazzy photocopier that transforms selected chunks of text into bold. It just IS dodgy, no doubt about it.

 

[thehog]

It's just too odd along with those faxes looking awfully suspect.

Well I don't know about others but when photocopying or scanning a printed page, or even printing a document using different printer/settings/computers, I often get different physical margins. Whose to say one doc was not a photocopy of the other? That would seem more plausible than deliberate falsehood via photoshop.

But without evidence either way, who can really say?

Pretty snazzy photocopier that transforms selected chunks of text into bold. It just IS dodgy, no doubt about it.

I like how the 'g' in 'kg' bleeds over the red highlight and the comma between 75 and 6 lips underneath. It's like it was corrected after the highlight was done. Last time I checked faxes are not colour

 

[Semper Fidelis]

It's just too odd along with those faxes looking awfully suspect.

Well I don't know about others but when photocopying or scanning a printed page, or even printing a document using different printer/settings/computers, I often get different physical margins. Whose to say one doc was not a photocopy of the other? That would seem more plausible than deliberate falsehood via photoshop.

But without evidence either way, who can really say?

Pretty snazzy photocopier that transforms selected chunks of text into bold. It just IS dodgy, no doubt about it.

I like how the 'g' in 'kg' bleeds over the red highlight and the comma between 75 and 6 lips underneath. It's like it was corrected after the highlight was done. Last time I checked faxes are not colour

Bluebeam works wonders with VO2 scores.

 

[thehog]

It made for a good story. The missing link indeed... who would have thought?

 

[Jacques de Molay]

It is flat-out impossible they never tested their riders.

Nonsense. Even the AIS, which has probably invested more time and energy into physiological testing than any other entity in this history of sport, has largely given up on such measurements, instead simply relying upon power data, which provides a more direct, integrative, and accurate indication of someone's performance ability.

Given that sober assessment, what then is the point of places such as the GSK lab?

The GSK Human Performance Lab works with the world’s elite athletes - from extreme explorers to current Olympic champions - enabling them to break through the limits of human performance.

What are we to make of that? Is it hocus-pocus, smoke and mirrors, or something legitimately valuable for both athletic development and improvement?

 

[Jacques de Molay]

It made for a good story. The missing link indeed... who would have thought?

I will humbly refer you to one of my previous posts upthread.

Re: The 2007 UCI Data

I'd like to know why Inspector Cound seems to have been the only one capable of tracking down this elusive piece of the puzzle. For years there were rumors and whispers about these supposed champion-in-the-making test results. For the past year, at least, many had been clamoring for this information. So how difficult could this have been?

Whoever was involved in the original tests certainly knew that they were involved in the original tests, and it is beyond belief that they weren't aware that there was a growing interest in the results of that time. Froome, and Team Sky, were under more scrutiny during the 2015 TdF than at any other time in their collective history. In the midst of all that, no one steps forward and says, "Oh hey, over here! I've got what you're looking for!"
Really?

When the winner of the TdF is under the microscope of public opinion, the entire sport is under the microscope. So what would it have taken for Cookson to resolve the matter of these tests that were performed while Froome was under the care of UCI's own development center? A phone call? A small-group email?

Hey guys and gals, could we please get to the bottom of this once-and-for-all?

When were the tests done?
Who was there?
Where are the results?

I'll expect some definitive answers within 48 hours. Thanks.

Yours,

Brian

Does this look like the type of place that doesn't keep track of their own records?
The World Cycling Centre (WCC), which houses the headquarters of the International Cycling Union (UCI), is an elite coaching and training centre.

But no. They just let it fester nearly endlessly, allowing more doubt and suspicion to creep into the mix. That is, until Professor Cound comes along to save the day.

And here we are.

 

[acoggan]

It is flat-out impossible they never tested their riders.

Nonsense. Even the AIS, which has probably invested more time and energy into physiological testing than any other entity in this history of sport, has largely given up on such measurements, instead simply relying upon power data, which provides a more direct, integrative, and accurate indication of someone's performance ability.

Given that sober assessment, what then is the point of places such as the GSK lab?

The GSK Human Performance Lab works with the world’s elite athletes - from extreme explorers to current Olympic champions - enabling them to break through the limits of human performance.

What are we to make of that? Is it hocus-pocus, smoke and mirrors, or something legitimately valuable for both athletic development and improvement?

I guess you could ask yourself this: if physiological testing is so valuable, why haven't more entities attempted to cash in on it by providing such testing?

(Cadence Cycling, backed by Comcast, once offered such testing in Philadelphia, with rather grandiose plans to expand to New York and the West Coast, and didn't really blink when I said it would take a salary of $100k/y to leave academia and work for them. Now, I don't even know if they are still in the game. Similarly, Carmichael Training Systems once had plans to offer physiological testing throughout the US, but I believe that is now limited to only one center in Vail, where their clientele can afford it. Meanwhile, the AIS has largely given up on such testing for cyclists, preferring field tests to determine power instead, and their most well-known physiologist, i.e., Dave Martin, now works for the Philadelphia 76ers of the NBA.)

 

[Jacques de Molay]

Meanwhile, the AIS has largely given up on such testing for cyclists, preferring field tests to determine power instead, and their most well-known physiologist, i.e., Dave Martin, now works for the Philadelphia 76ers of the NBA.)

That gets to the next question I was going to ask (and thanks for the response thus far).

I get how power data could be of more value in the real world of pro cycling than some of these other lab tests, but how about for other sports or activities? Are you saying that the AIS has mostly abandoned the GSK-type tests, across the board, for all athletes, or just cyclists?

 

[thehog]

Meanwhile, the AIS has largely given up on such testing for cyclists, preferring field tests to determine power instead, and their most well-known physiologist, i.e., Dave Martin, now works for the Philadelphia 76ers of the NBA.)

That gets to the next question I was going to ask (and thanks for the response thus far).

I get how power data could be of more value in the real world of pro cycling than some of these other lab tests, but how about for other sports or activities? Are you saying that the AIS has mostly abandoned the GSK-type tests, across the board, for all athletes, or just cyclists?

There is the point that he must have output close to his 2007 numbers at some point between the infamous UCI test and the Vuelta 2011. Surely there is a power file, a FTP test, something that shows what he was capable of, anything? Surely this big engine appeared 'inconsistently' as described through this time period?

The 2007 test cannot be in isolation. The one time he goes into a lab as a young man the wattage goes up and the day after disappears again, never to be seen until 4 years later?

I don't doubt the 2015 numbers, I think they were recorded legitimately. 2007, however, is not adding up.

 

[Tonton]

Re: Re:

What you score is what you are, IMO. The rest is conjecture. I don't like the idea of manipulating numbers to fit an agenda.

Then just look at the absolute VO2max and absolute power comparisons and leave body fat/mass variations out of the mix.

The absolute VO2max values from the two test reports are only ~2% different.

Not much to do with my point, which was that if you play bowling, hit 9 strikes, phone call, emergency, and you leave, don't say you scored 300. Yes, you were on pace, a formula/projection can make sense, but it's not true. The 88 VO2Max theory: Not true. 84, yes. He did it.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

For fun, a copy of Ivan Basso's VO2max and submax testing from 2008:
http://www.mapeisport.it/IvanBasso/public/VO2max_test_EN.pdf

 

[Night Rider]

Re: Re:

Well we know from the 2011 Vuelta files he weighed between 69.4 and 70.2kg. I don't know why Tucker doesn't make more of the comparison to that one hour Vuelta ITT and this latest test. The weight is almost the same yet it appears the FTP now is lower. Something not right in the test.

??

His FTP wasn't measured by the GSK lab. For many cyclists, however, maximal lactate steady state (for which FTP serves as a surrogate marker) lies above OBLA, which was, what, 419 W?

Toss in the effects of stage race fatigue and the fact that Froome is clearly a slow-twitcher (meaning his MLSS will occur at a lower lactate level) and it seems to me that the results of the Vuelta TT (average power was, what, 410-415 W?) are quite consistent with these 2015 data.

I had Froome's Vuelta FTP at 428-432, that's why I said it was higher than the 419 + a bit of the GSK test. I calculated the 428 and 432 for Stage 4 Sierra Nevada and the ITT stage working backwords from the Duration in seconds, NP, IF and TSS scores. There would be a bit of rounding so 430 would be the average of the two.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Pretty snazzy photocopier that transforms selected chunks of text into bold. It just IS dodgy, no doubt about it.

Perhaps but two copies with exactly the same info, with one bolded text and a highlight added hardly screams conspiracy to me. It just says different formatting of the same document.

 

[Night Rider]

Re: Re:

Love that picture. Now just waiting for the 16.9% rider to compare and contrast.

One for the bots - why are there two different versions with different font treatments for the text in certain areas ?

If you download the high res jpg thehog posted and look in the image EXIF Info
you see it was created in Adobe Photoshop CS6 (I use IrfanView)

just saying,
photoshopped

Just keep in mind if it came from a website then it's pretty standard to use photoshop to compress back to "6" quality which is what that is. That doesn't mean other changes weren't also made.

And, the two different versions look dodgy as F.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Last time I checked faxes are not colour

No, but scanned documents are.

 

[Night Rider]

For fun, a copy of Ivan Basso's VO2max and submax testing from 2008:
http://www.mapeisport.it/IvanBasso/public/VO2max_test_EN.pdf

Thanks, that's interesting. Test done in November so take off a few kg like Froome did and it gets interesting.

 

[thehog]

Pretty snazzy photocopier that transforms selected chunks of text into bold. It just IS dodgy, no doubt about it.

Perhaps but two copies with exactly the same info, with one bolded text and a highlight added hardly screams conspiracy to me. It just says different formatting of the same document.

Left copy is the Marked Up version from Esquire, the right side s the unmarked copy from other magazines like CyclingWeekly.


1. Left copy green circles, phone numbers are smudged to conceal contact information indicating the document has been treated for publication. Right side green circle is clean to indicate it's the original.

2. Red square on left copy has a "punch hole" binder press mark covering Dr. Farron's first initial, magically on the right red square Dr. Farron's first initial is missing with a blank space area. There is a new punch hole to the right indicating this is another document or a copy of the first? Light blue arrow indicates space marker between title and last name. Oddly the heading 'Medcines' remains intact even with the gap between 'Dr' and last name, on the left copy it broken away by the binder hole.

3. Black square around height and weight on left side copy has been highlighted in red to show key data. The 'g' from 'kg' appears to bleed over the top of the updated highlight. Point 1 shows contact information was smudged, the expectation is an updated copy. It could be a pen marker and not photoshop? The ',' between 75 and '6' bleeds under the red highlight.

4. Light green square on right shows punch binder hole concealing title of 'Chef de Service' which is in italic. Green square on right 'Chef' strangely appears in Italic under the heading of 'Chef de service' rather than standard formatting like remainder of the name on both sheets, there is also a extended space between 'Chef' and 'P.-F' on the right side document.

5. Red arrow indicates second binder hole on right document. It doesn't align with the the binder hole on the left document even when the top binder hole on the two docs do. Perhaps a difference in folder sizes? Red line shows the misalignment between the two binder holes on each document.

6. Yellow squares indicate bolding on the 'watts' etc. on left document but the bold disappears on the right sided original document.

7. Large scuff mark on left document doesn't appear on right document. Maybe a reason for this marking being on one and not the other? Light blue arrow indicates.

--

I don't know what to make of the documents or why they released two separate versions but there are some odd inconsistencies between the two.

The Esquire version to the left would have been in the publishers hands much eariler, perhaps that's why? Then they located the 'cleaner' copy? But the cleaner copy has out takes from the first and text has been entered to cover the binder holes.

Hi-Res left side markup:

http://commercial-s3.s3.amazonaws.com/shorthand/esquire/chrisfroome/froome-scan-hr_lgcg8r4.jpg

Hi-Res right side presumed original:

https://keyassets.timeincuk.net/inspirewp/live/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2015/12/CHRIS_FROOME_SWISS_DOC.jpg

 

[gooner]

Bingo.

Jeremy Whittle @jeremycwhittle
Why should you need a degree in sports science to enjoy watching sport? Seems from now on you will, if you love cycling.

The last few days has brought back nice memories from this past July.

Carry on there lads

 

[Merckx index]

This post describes/illustrates the Dmax method, which will hopefully help make the issue more clear:

http://www.trainingandracingwithapowermeter.com/2010/08/estimation-of-functional-threshold.html

As can be seen in the figure, on the 2nd occasions their lactate concentration-exercise intensity curve was not only shifted to the left, but was also shifted quite a bit downward, especially at higher exercise intensities.

I think you mean shifted to the right?

Andy, in your CN article you noted, as have others, that the study would have been enriched by having LT/fractional utilization and efficiency determined. But can’t we make a pretty good guess about their values? A while back, you pointed out to me a paper, I think you were one of the authors, in which even some recreational cyclists had thresholds in the high 80s. Alex said his was 88% at 30 minutes. And just upthread you explained to me that the ratio of FTP to peak power, which was about 80% in the Froome study, underestimated the threshold because the peak power as measured at the end of the test is higher than that power at V02max.

Given all that, can’t we assume that Froome’s threshold is pretty close to 90%? And since it surely can’t be much higher than that, can’t we assume that the possible range is fairly narrow? Suppose it’s somewhere between 88-92%. Then efficiency would be 22-23%. A more precise value of either really wouldn’t tell us anything more.

This assumes, of course, that we have an accurate value of FTP. You have noted they stopped the sub-maximal test a little early, but if I understand you correctly, you don’t think that has had a major effect on the value they came up with.

 

[armchairclimber]

Pretty snazzy photocopier that transforms selected chunks of text into bold. It just IS dodgy, no doubt about it.

Perhaps but two copies with exactly the same info, with one bolded text and a highlight added hardly screams conspiracy to me. It just says different formatting of the same document.

Left copy is the Marked Up version from Esquire, the right side s the unmarked copy from other magazines like CyclingWeekly.


1. Left copy green circles, phone numbers are smudged to conceal contact information indicating the document has been treated for publication. Right side green circle is clean to indicate it's the original.

2. Red square on left copy has a "punch hole" binder press mark covering Dr. Farron's first initial, magically on the right red square Dr. Farron's first initial is missing with a blank space area. There is a new punch hole to the right indicating this is another document or a copy of the first? Light blue arrow indicates space marker between title and last name. Oddly the heading 'Medcines' remains intact even with the gap between 'Dr' and last name, on the left copy it broken away by the binder hole.

3. Black square around height and weight on left side copy has been highlighted in red to show key data. The 'g' from 'kg' appears to bleed over the top of the updated highlight. Point 1 shows contact information was smudged, the expectation is an updated copy. It could be a pen marker and not photoshop? The ',' between 75 and '6' bleeds under the red highlight.

4. Light green square on right shows punch binder hole concealing title of 'Chef de Service' which is in italic. Green square on right 'Chef' strangely appears in Italic under the heading of 'Chef de service' rather than standard formatting like remainder of the name on both sheets, there is also a extended space between 'Chef' and 'P.-F' on the right side document.

5. Red arrow indicates second binder hole on right document. It doesn't align with the the binder hole on the left document even when the top binder hole on the two docs do. Perhaps a difference in folder sizes? Red line shows the misalignment between the two binder holes on each document.

6. Yellow squares indicate bolding on the 'watts' etc. on left document but the bold disappears on the right sided original document.

7. Large scuff mark on left document doesn't appear on right document. Maybe a reason for this marking being on one and not the other? Light blue arrow indicates.

--

I don't know what to make of the documents or why they released two separate versions but there are some odd inconsistencies between the two.

The Esquire version to the left would have been in the publishers hands much eariler, perhaps that's why? Then they located the 'cleaner' copy? But the cleaner copy has out takes from the first and text has been entered to cover the binder holes.

Hi-Res left side markup:

http://commercial-s3.s3.amazonaws.com/shorthand/esquire/chrisfroome/froome-scan-hr_lgcg8r4.jpg

Hi-Res right side presumed original:

https://keyassets.timeincuk.net/inspirewp/live/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2015/12/CHRIS_FROOME_SWISS_DOC.jpg

Given that both versions of the document appear to give exactly the same key values/information, I can't really imagine what would have been the point of any skulduggery ... if there was any.

 

[unclem0nty]

Given that both versions of the document appear to give exactly the same key values/information, I can't really imagine what would have been the point of any skulduggery ... if there was any.

Seems weird to me that this vital document - as posited above, the holy grail that will Save the Soul of Cycling - apparently disappeared off the face of the earth for 8 years until Michelle Cound's tireless detective work uncovered it... and then she doesn't unearth just one copy of it, but two alternative ones.

Why would somebody fax two very slightly different copies of the same fax to someone? "Hi, yep - thanks for the fax. All fine, but could I just ask you to send over another one, but with four lines of data near the end in bold face? Thanks. Obviously they'll both then be filed safely away in a place where no one will find them for several years."

Briefly: the suggestion is that these faxes are two drafts of the same manipulation. Looks as if perhaps somebody noticed that ALL the data entries should have been entered in bold for formatting consistency, but forgot to bin the other version and ended up inadvertently disseminating both.