The Froome Files, test data only thread

[Electress]

Re:

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.

Just to add - if you look in high res. the chef in the "clean" copy is a clear cut and paste from the chef de service text directly above it - the title should be prof as well. None of it makes much sense other than telling me there's something odd going on. Why would anyone at all infill a title (wrongly) in the space made by a punchhole ? Unless hoping to conceal it?

 

[gillan1969]

Re: Re:

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.

Just to add - if you look in high res. the chef in the "clean" copy is a clear cut and paste from the chef de service text directly above it - the title should be prof as well. None of it makes much sense other than telling me there's something odd going on. Why would anyone at all infill a title (wrongly) in the space made by a punchhole ? Unless hoping to conceal it?

well I am hoping there is more to the 2007 data than this (these) one page. Otherwide all we have is..a page which says....

jesus loves me this I know as the bible tells me so

plus ca change

has Swart been asked if the 2007 data is more rich than this? ...otherwise again he seems to be being used to push the narrative...how does he know that he had the engine all along...as Cound told him so..

 

[armchairclimber]

Re:

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.

Even that doesn't make any sense. TBH, given that even the 2007 data, whatever it revealed, would not answer the "doping or not" question ... and whatever the numbers were, they would likely prompt as many questions as answers, I really don't understand why anyone would bother altering values. Firstly, the protocols of the tests were not consistent, so no really firm conclusions could be drawn. Secondly, the UCI coach had already spoken about this test and the fact that it showed Froome to have GT winning potential months ago.... long before anyone even spoke of testing now and drawing comparisons with 2007. Lastly, even if you take the test result at face value, there's still the massive elephant in the room... how come he was so crap back then, and how come this potential was so suddenly (and unexpectedly) revealed at the 2011 Vuelta?

 

[gillan1969]

Re: Re:

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.

Even that doesn't make any sense. TBH, given that even the 2007 data, whatever it revealed, would not answer the "doping or not" question ... and whatever the numbers were, they would likely prompt as many questions as answers, I really don't understand why anyone would bother altering values. Firstly, the protocols of the tests were not consistent, so no really firm conclusions could be drawn. Secondly, the UCI coach had already spoken about this test and the fact that it showed Froome to have GT winning potential months ago.... long before anyone even spoke of testing now and drawing comparisons with 2007. Lastly, even if you take the test result at face value, there's still the massive elephant in the room... how come he was so crap back then, and how come this potential was so suddenly (and unexpectedly) revealed at the 2011 Vuelta?

however, to repeat...the independant scientist...who has (other than some very minor issues) done his job well, has used the 2007 numbers to state ..he had the "engine all along"...to Moore, who is being paid to push the narrative...this is the "really interesting bit".

in terms of making the "unbelievable believable"...this is a big step....conflate dodgy data with good data..

 

[unclem0nty]

Re: Re:

Just to add - if you look in high res. the chef in the "clean" copy is a clear cut and paste from the chef de service text directly above it - the title should be prof as well. None of it makes much sense other than telling me there's something odd going on. Why would anyone at all infill a title (wrongly) in the space made by a punchhole ? Unless hoping to conceal it?

Indeed. Is "chef" even a job title? Looks very much as if it should have been "Dr".

Even that doesn't make any sense. TBH, given that even the 2007 data, whatever it revealed, would not answer the "doping or not" question ... and whatever the numbers were, they would likely prompt as many questions as answers, I really don't understand why anyone would bother altering values. Firstly, the protocols of the tests were not consistent, so no really firm conclusions could be drawn. Secondly, the UCI coach had already spoken about this test and the fact that it showed Froome to have GT winning potential months ago.... long before anyone even spoke of testing now and drawing comparisons with 2007. Lastly, even if you take the test result at face value, there's still the massive elephant in the room... how come he was so crap back then, and how come this potential was so suddenly (and unexpectedly) revealed at the 2011 Vuelta?

I agree it doesn't make much sense to people in here. However this whole exercise is pitched squarely at blinding the general public with a bit of science, and then following this up with the confident, QED assertion that Froome always had the inate potential to win multiple TDFs and is therefore innocent of all charges.

 

[Jacques de Molay]

That is my beef with the whole Froome story. Two important numbers keep changing: his reported weight, and his reported MHR.
<snip>
Please anyone, chime in.

When dealing with matters of science, it's always good to refer to Professor Cound. I'm not sure if these numbers will be useful to the discussion at hand or not, but who remembers this particularly amusing anecdote?

July, 2013

How Chris Froome's feisty fiancee is the power behind his throne

As she watched her fiancé, Chris Froome, pedal his way to glory in the Tour de France over the past few weeks, Michelle Cound was rather alarmed at how excited she was becoming. In the way her husband-to-be measures every part of his physical output, she decided to test exactly how overwrought she was.

So, as she hunkered down in front of the television coverage of one of his individual time trials, she hooked herself up to a heart rate monitor. It revealed that at its peak watching Froome’s effort, her heart was pounding at 171 beats per minute. Later she compared her figures with her man’s data. She discovered the ice cool champion’s heart rate that day had never risen above 167 bpm.

 

[Electress]

Re: Re:

Just to add - if you look in high res. the chef in the "clean" copy is a clear cut and paste from the chef de service text directly above it - the title should be prof as well. None of it makes much sense other than telling me there's something odd going on. Why would anyone at all infill a title (wrongly) in the space made by a punchhole ? Unless hoping to conceal it?

Indeed. Is "chef" even a job title? Looks very much as if it should have been "Dr".

No, it should be 'Prof.' as it is elsewhere in the document. But it is clearly italic 'Chef' cut and paste. Why would anyone - a secretary, anyone, do that? Esp. and get the guy's title wrong? Note that all the other 'Chefs de' enjoy the use of their (non-italic) academic title, only the Prof in this one case does not. Prof also fits if it were also 'Prof.' where the non-italic f is left in the 'faxed' (i.e. not so 'clean') copy, if the 'Pro..' has been taken out by the hole punch.

Honestly, even trying very hard to not sound like a lunatic conspiracy theorist, at least the 'clean' 'top' copy has been fiddled with.

And whilst this doesn't deal directly with the data, it does call into question of the origin of the documents. And make this at least sound plausible to me:

n terms of making the "unbelievable believable"...this is a big step....conflate dodgy data with good data..

BTW- Dr Farron's name is 'Alain'. He's a Prof. too now.

PS: And the Cound. To quote LaFlo.

 

[armchairclimber]

"however, to repeat...the independant scientist...who has (other than some very minor issues) done his job well, has used the 2007 numbers to state ..he had the "engine all along"...to Moore, who is being paid to push the narrative...this is the "really interesting bit".

in terms of making the "unbelievable believable"...this is a big step....conflate dodgy data with good data.."

Yes, and to repeat, even if he did have the engine all along, it still begs the question... why so crap for 4 years and why "suddenly" so awesome. The narrative is questionable whether the 2007 figures are correct or bllx.

 

[Jacques de Molay]

Re: Re:

this whole exercise is pitched squarely at blinding the general public with a bit of science...

and a healthy dose of nationalism. If it just weren't for those damned French scoundrels.

Chris Froome frees data in bid to silence doubters

Making good on a pledge he made in winning the Tour de France, Chris Froome released results of laboratory tests on his body to counter sceptics in France who have repeatedly expressed doubts that he rides clean.

One test of VO2 max, an indication of how effectively the body transports oxygen from the air to muscles during intense exercise, measured Froome at 84.6, more than double what it would be in the general population, the magazine reported.

So there you have it. It was the French. It's always the French.

Fortunately for the uninformed and gullible, the article never bothers to mention that all elite athletes will possess physical attributes well beyond "the general population." But as with the Lance Chronicles, it's important to push the narrative that the idolized individual is simply in a league all of their own, with no equal among mortal men.

 

[gillan1969]

Re:

"however, to repeat...the independant scientist...who has (other than some very minor issues) done his job well, has used the 2007 numbers to state ..he had the "engine all along"...to Moore, who is being paid to push the narrative...this is the "really interesting bit".

in terms of making the "unbelievable believable"...this is a big step....conflate dodgy data with good data.."

Yes, and to repeat, even if he did have the engine all along, it still begs the question... why so crap for 4 years and why "suddenly" so awesome. The narrative is questionable whether the 2007 figures are correct or bllx.

indeed armchair...the turd is being polished...but it's still a turd

 

[roundabout]

Re:

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.

From memory, Basso's weight was adjusted to get the VO2max for the test as his weight was not 69kg when other tests were done around that period.

 

[pastronef]

read the italic test on twitter among the tests discussions and re-tweets :lol
well, anyway

"Sky:

A) high quality doping
B) governing body protection"

now I know WHY all people shout at them like crazy, like mad: governing body protection

I HAVE DISCOVERED the reason of the madness

people are outraged about that, it seems. otherwise they would be outraged at their rival teams/riders too, no?

because their rivals use quality doping too!

 

[Franklin]

Re: Re:

Two faxes, one bold, one not, odd shaped top page, binder holes misaligned.

Original and the received fax? Or original and photocopy. That explains the binder holes and the fact that one is bolder than the other (depending on the copier/fax/toner level those things can get a bit off).

Mind that I'm critical as anyone can be, but this is a plausible explanation.

 

[Franklin]

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.

Sorry... no weight tracking over the season? No weight to power tracking?

Amazing.

 

[acoggan]

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?

According to what is essentially their lab manua (https://books.google.com/books?id=0OPIiMks58MC), for cycling the AIS has largely replaced physiological testing with performance monitoring.

I don't know about other sports, now that it is possible to monitor the power output of, e.g., runners, it may only be a matter of time.

 

[acoggan]

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.

Not necessarily, as it is possible for his sustainable power to have increased over time due to improvements in lactate threshold and/or efficiency. This is why it is unfortunate that the 2007 testing apparently only included measurement of VO2max (and body composition), and not the other two "legs" of the performance "stool".

 

[Electress]

Re: Re:

Two faxes, one bold, one not, odd shaped top page, binder holes misaligned.

Original and the received fax? Or original and photocopy. That explains the binder holes and the fact that one is bolder than the other (depending on the copier/fax/toner level those things can get a bit off).

Mind that I'm critical as anyone can be, but this is a plausible explanation.

It doesn't, however, explain all the weirdness of Dr Farron's missing initial, nor the cut and paste Chef vs. Prof in the supposed 'clean' top copy. But I'm starting to sound like a loon.

I can believe in the 2015 data. The 2007. i have my doubts. Too convenient. and too odd. Devil's in the detail, as they say.

 

[acoggan]

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.

Right, but that only gets you to what his FTP has/had been set in TrainingPeaks, which may or may not be what it actually is/was.

 

[gillan1969]

Re: Re:

Two faxes, one bold, one not, odd shaped top page, binder holes misaligned.

Original and the received fax? Or original and photocopy. That explains the binder holes and the fact that one is bolder than the other (depending on the copier/fax/toner level those things can get a bit off).

Mind that I'm critical as anyone can be, but this is a plausible explanation.

It doesn't, however, explain all the weirdness of Dr Farron's missing initial, nor the cut and paste Chef vs. Prof in the supposed 'clean' top copy.

presumably a journo with an inquiring mind like Moore R has got this covered

...and could always go to source and ask for another copy...

 

[acoggan]

Re:

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

As I'm sure you know, Evans' data is out there as well, in a lay article written by Dave Martin. I was going to email you to suggest a blog entry comparing the three.

 

[Electress]

Re: Re:

Two faxes, one bold, one not, odd shaped top page, binder holes misaligned.

Original and the received fax? Or original and photocopy. That explains the binder holes and the fact that one is bolder than the other (depending on the copier/fax/toner level those things can get a bit off).

Mind that I'm critical as anyone can be, but this is a plausible explanation.

It doesn't, however, explain all the weirdness of Dr Farron's missing initial, nor the cut and paste Chef vs. Prof in the supposed 'clean' top copy.

presumably a journo with an inquiring mind like Moore R has got this covered

...and could always go to source and ask for another copy...

I know it's easy to dismiss as trivial and not to do with the data, but two slightly different versions of the 'same' document, 8 years old, conveniently rediscovered, one obviously tampered with digitally - It just doesn't make sense. I'm really curious as to why anyone would do that - legitimately or not.

 

[acoggan]

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.

Yes, to the right - sorry.

As for the test, no argument with your logic. By the same token, however, you could have just assumed/estimated his VO2max as well (as I did, based on his publicly-stated power outputs...which unfortunately I thought had already been corrected downward for the use of non-round chainrings, causing me to overestimate by 4%), and not bothered doing any testing at all.

IOW, I figure in for a penny, in for a pound (not that I would have spent the penny if I were Froome himself, since physiological tests like these can't be used to prove or disprove doping).

 

[harryh]

https://twitter.com/JeroenSwart/status/673830299034370048?lang=fi

https://twitter.com/JeroenSwart/status/673839623475433472?lang=fi

 

[gillan1969]

Re:

https://twitter.com/JeroenSwart/status/673830299034370048?lang=fi

love it..."as i understand it"...oft used phrase when there's a whiff of b/sht about...or large gaps

 

[gillan1969]

Re:

https://twitter.com/JeroenSwart/status/673830299034370048?lang=fi

https://twitter.com/JeroenSwart/status/673839623475433472?lang=fi

whose the mark burnley guy?...very dismissive before the Ewon boy has to 'remind' him of the issue..

you could put what he knows about media manipulation into a hat and there would still be lots of room for the head