The Froome Files, test data only thread

[thehog]

Re:

There are some scientists who don't believe anything that comes out of other peoples' labs. Others take all data at face value until proven otherwise. There is a balancing act between critically challenging data and blindly believing anything in print. It is difficult to know the validity of the 2007 data because we are missing so much context on what was communicated between the labs and the individuals.

Dr. Swart comes off a bit flippant and defensive on twitter, but there is nothing that I have seen that would make me question his critical thinking. JMO

Agreed, especially an older study. I spoke with Swart and he confirmed he wasn't providing a scientific conclusion just his opinion to a question asked by Moore. The article makes it look like its a final determination rather than him just glancing at the fax.

He did say that the Lausanne lab plans to be part of his final report and provid their own peer reviewed output.

My only concern at this point is Swart makes odd statements like "Then why the CF bashing?", I have no issue with him standing by his numbers but he shouldn't be PR for Froome Inc.

 

[djpbaltimore]

Yeah, that is a fair critique.

 

[harryh]

So everyone seems to win by the scepticism by laymen; Swart, the scientists collected the 2007 data, and perhaps Froome too. Long live social media

https://twitter.com/JeroenSwart/status/673923450562547712?lang=fi

 

[Jacques de Molay]

Re: Re:

I spoke with Swart...

On Twitter, yes?

 

[Jacques de Molay]

Re:

So everyone seems to win by the scepticism by laymen; Swart, the scientists collected the 2007 data, and perhaps Froome too. Long live social media

https://twitter.com/JeroenSwart/status/673923450562547712?lang=fi

Your post makes no sense. Please clarify.

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

I spoke with Swart...

On Twitter, yes?

That's how people communicate in 2015, yes?

 

[Jacques de Molay]

Re: Re:

I spoke with Swart...

On Twitter, yes?

That's how people communicate in 2015, yes?

Some still prefer a more direct method.

 

[harryh]

Re: Re:

So everyone seems to win by the scepticism by laymen; Swart, the scientists collected the 2007 data, and perhaps Froome too. Long live social media

https://twitter.com/JeroenSwart/status/673923450562547712?lang=fi

Your post makes no sense. Please clarify.

Well, obviously Swart will be an author of a better academc paper, since it will contain not only the data set from 2015 but more or less simlilar data set from 2007 as well. Moreover, the scientists in Lausanne get their names in the paper too. Everyone wins

 

[Jacques de Molay]

Back to the data...

With all the numbers being thrown around, what is supposed to be the takeaway from all this as it pertains to Chris' wining ways?

If we proceed with the premise that Froome put up remarkable numbers as a young rider, and is still able to produce remarkable numbers as a more-seasoned rider, then is the implication supposed to be that his numbers are so amazing as to surpass that of all his rivals, and that's why he wins?

Is anyone suggesting that a young Quintana, Contador or Nibali wouldn't have also have produce exceptional numbers in the lab, or that they wouldn't do so today? Are we supposed to extrapolate from all this that Froome's numbers would be markedly better than his rivals?

Is that argument being put forth? That Froome is able to win because of superior physiology?

I have no doubt that Froome's physiology is superior to at least a few of us on this forum , but the only question worth asking is, Is it superior to that of his rivals? Because if not, then how is he betting them, especially given the disadvantages of not having raced in Europe at a young age, having to overcome poor bike handling (it's a work in progress), and having to contend with debilitating tropical diseases (and asthma)?

It would seem that to offset all those obstacles would require quite a physiological advantage indeed. So is that the Froome/Sky stance now? That he is just that much more gifted?

Or are we back to marginal science and more determination?

It's hard to keep track.

 

[harryh]

Back to the data...

*snip*

Is anyone suggesting that a young Quintana, Contador or Nibali wouldn't have also have produce exceptional numbers in the lab, or that they wouldn't do so today? Are we supposed to extrapolate from all this that Froome's numbers would be markedly better than his rivals?

*snip*

Speaking of data... it would be nice if they went to e.g. GSK for testing and publish their test results. Hb/Hct from a couple of blood tests would be a nice bonus.

 

[Jacques de Molay]

Speaking of data... it would would nice if they went to e.g. GSK for testing and publish their test results. Hb/Hct from a couple of blood tests would be a nice bonus.

Indeed it would.

Indeed. It. Would.

 

[LaFlorecita]

Jeroen Swart ‏@JeroenSwart 2 uur2 uur geleden
.@festinaboy hello again Mr Vayer. It seems @chrisfroome has never done 6.2w/kg in week 3 of the TDF. Even though many known dopers have.

Fleur ‏@vamosalberto 6 min6 minuten geleden
@JeroenSwart @festinaboy @chrisfroome Hi Jeroen, could you tell me which known dopers managed that besides Lance in 2004 in the Alpe MTT?

Jeroen Swart ‏@JeroenSwart 5 min5 minuten geleden
@vamosalberto @festinaboy @chrisfroome that's one. Antoine seems to know who they all are though. Please ask him.

Fleur ‏@vamosalberto 2 min2 minuten geleden
@JeroenSwart @festinaboy @chrisfroome Sorry, I may have misread but it appears to me that you were suggesting there were many?

Errrrr

 

[armchairclimber]

Poor fellow must be wondering WTF he has got himself into. I hope he is enjoying his 15 minutes....but I doubt it.

 

[djpbaltimore]

I think he does enjoy the twitter attention. He would've stopped long ago if he did not IMO. I do wish he would take a few extra seconds to proofread.

Jeroen Swart ‏@JeroenSwart 20m20 minutes ago
@vamosalberto @festinaboy @chrisfroome maybe you should preach those words to some of the lunching mob in July? And to Antoine.

 

[LaFlorecita]

Re:

I think he does enjoy the twitter attention. He would've stopped long ago if he did not IMO. I do wish he would take a few extra seconds to proofread.

Jeroen Swart ‏@JeroenSwart 20m20 minutes ago
@vamosalberto @festinaboy @chrisfroome maybe you should preach those words to some of the lunching mob in July? And to Antoine.

Yeah not sure what his beef is with a lunching mob!

 

[Campervan man]

Re:

Jeroen Swart ‏@JeroenSwart 2 uur2 uur geleden
.@festinaboy hello again Mr Vayer. It seems @chrisfroome has never done 6.2w/kg in week 3 of the TDF. Even though many known dopers have.

Fleur ‏@vamosalberto 6 min6 minuten geleden
@JeroenSwart @festinaboy @chrisfroome Hi Jeroen, could you tell me which known dopers managed that besides Lance in 2004 in the Alpe MTT?

Jeroen Swart ‏@JeroenSwart 5 min5 minuten geleden
@vamosalberto @festinaboy @chrisfroome that's one. Antoine seems to know who they all are though. Please ask him.

Fleur ‏@vamosalberto 2 min2 minuten geleden
@JeroenSwart @festinaboy @chrisfroome Sorry, I may have misread but it appears to me that you were suggesting there were many?

Errrrr

And..... ? Any response yet? Just curious which riders have done that if any in week 3.
As with all the data and lack of some when is the full report out? I'm as baffled by anyone as to why if the 2007 test are correct he never showed up for four whole years it's simply not possible to not fulfil that kind of potential. All things as they are now bar the Dauphine '14 Froome has been absurdly dominant and that is not quite right as far as physiology is concerned. The other top GC riders must be closer in actual physiological terms but the utter dominance on PSM and Ax3 is crazy. The toying of opposition and yo yoing are all symptoms of someone who knows they are much superior in numbers terms. I can't pin point what it is but Team Froome are fully aware of what numbers they need to produce in the Tour these tests are a slightly lesser example.

 

[Irondan]

Please keep the discussion to the topic at hand.

Any other comments WRT Chris Froome can be posted in the 'Froome Talk only' thread in the clinic.

TIA

 

[LaFlorecita]

He said it was not his words but Vayer's that many known dopers managed that, so I said maybe he should be more careful with the way he phrases things in the future as they could be misinterpreted (his tweet was brought to my attention by someone wanting to show that Froome can't do things dopers can do) and then he said I should preach to the "lunching mob" and Vayer and not just target him with my "ethics".

 

[Winterfold]

acoggan I'm curious - if a PhD student you were supervising used a fax similar to the 2007 one to you as data what would you say to them? I'd expect a fax from a figure like Zorzoli uncovered by the subject's girlfriend to be looked at extremely critically - could it actually be used in anyway?

It's a pity this fax didn't turn up in 2011, it could have saved all us Internet trollz, pseudo-scientists and BC sanctioned cycling experts a lot of trouble, Sky included. I mean fancy being on the verge of sacking a rider with such amazing potential when you claim to be the most thorough and scientific team in cycling. But thank you Professor Cound!

 

[armchairclimber]

Re:

acoggan I'm curious - if a PhD student you were supervising used a fax similar to the 2007 one to you as data what would you say to them? I'd expect a fax from a figure like Zorzoli uncovered by the subject's girlfriend to be looked at extremely critically - could it actually be used in anyway?

It's a pity this fax didn't turn up in 2011, it could have saved all us Internet trollz, pseudo-scientists and BC sanctioned cycling experts a lot of trouble, Sky included. I mean fancy being on the verge of sacking a rider with such amazing potential when you claim to be the most thorough and scientific team in cycling. But thank you Professor Cound!

Thing is...and this is quite important, regardless of the doping questions... if you had that 2007 rider, you would have no idea that you could actually get his weight down to the degree that the subject looks emaciated....ie. Froome at 65 to 68kg. He was quite a big lad. You might think "if only" but actually getting there is another matter.

 

[Electress]

Re:

acoggan I'm curious - if a PhD student you were supervising used a fax similar to the 2007 one to you as data what would you say to them? I'd expect a fax from a figure like Zorzoli uncovered by the subject's girlfriend to be looked at extremely critically - could it actually be used

Has it been confirmed the fax did come from La Cound? Because I cannot see, given the controversy these tests arose from that, if so, this did not raise a bit of a red flag.

As for the data - clearly it's pretty meagre from 2007 unless there's more?. Surely the most one can say is that it really didn't contradict anything much, but confirmed zilch. It has done nothing to address Froome's performance transformation.

 

[Franklin]

Perhaps the following works for me, but there are huge issues, first of them is lack of any meaningful data. And I'm sure there are many more issues I'm not seeing

1. 16.9% fat is silly territory and clearly untrue. His earlier reported weight is correct: 70-71kg.
2. But the weight loss hinted at is more or less true... so Froome is actually not 67kg, but 65-66ish

And that's quite the territory we enter power/weight (and makes maintaining such power even more out of there). It explains why they came up with such a blatantly ridonculous starting weight.

Major problems:
- It's making his earlier career even more crazy
- no data to support my outlandish theory

 

[Winterfold]

Hmm, not sure anyone's making the point you are disagreeing with? But even so I can think of one rider in 2007 who looked like he was getting the hang of the 'starvation diet with no power loss' look. Good job Froome never rode on the same team as his doctor or one might become suspicous...

 

[Night Rider]

acoggan I'm curious - if a PhD student you were supervising used a fax similar to the 2007 one to you as data what would you say to them? I'd expect a fax from a figure like Zorzoli uncovered by the subject's girlfriend to be looked at extremely critically - could it actually be used in anyway?

It's a pity this fax didn't turn up in 2011, it could have saved all us Internet trollz, pseudo-scientists and BC sanctioned cycling experts a lot of trouble, Sky included. I mean fancy being on the verge of sacking a rider with such amazing potential when you claim to be the most thorough and scientific team in cycling. But thank you Professor Cound!

Thing is...and this is quite important, regardless of the doping questions... if you had that 2007 rider, you would have no idea that you could actually get his weight down to the degree that the subject looks emaciated....ie. Froome at 65 to 68kg. He was quite a big lad. You might think "if only" but actually getting there is another matter.

No, but you would no for sure you could get him down to the Vuelta 2011 weight. 70kg. Just keep in mind this was the biggest step in performance. The period (years) after Wiggins won the Tour was when Froome became super emaciated and dropped probably another 5kg. Ultimately the big performance gains were made just by dropping the excess fat and *whatever else sky uncovered*. Don't forget Froome was by far the strongest rider at the 2012 TdF.

 

[Winterfold]

Re: Re:

Has it been confirmed the fax did come from La Cound? Because I cannot see, given the controversy these tests arose from that, if so, this did not raise a bit of a red flag.

.

"He has other interesting news: Michelle has finally managed to track down the report from the tests carried out on Froome in Lausanne on 25 July, 2007."

I took that to mean she got hold of it.

http://chrisfroome.esquire.co.uk/

"So Professor the actor's spouse showed me this 8 year old fax from a discredited UCI official known to warn possible dopers of potential doping violations - I see no reason to doubt its contents."