The Froome Files, test data only thread

[roundabout]

Nice bit of faux indignation, hoggy.

It looks like a single page from a document, you don't know what is on other pages or whether anything apart from that page was produced before you start proclaiming your disappointment.

Edit: and just to clarify, I receive faxes without stamps or signatures all the time. They do have a disclaimer stating that they are valid anyway, but it seems that many people here would think that they are being pranked were they to receive one.

 

[Poursuivant]

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

You have to be taking the piss here, I really hope so

 

[bewildered]

very interesting and well done the Hog. Could they be asked where/who the fax was sent to them from, how many pages are in the 2007 report, how many of those pages they received and why they haven't released the remaining pages and which Doctor signed off on the 2007 report?

 

[thehog]

Moore is none the wiser on the article he penned. He now tells us to wait to 2016 until the full report arrives... that's comforting!

In the words of Amy Winehouse 'Oh what a mess we made...'

Why with Froome & Sky is it never simple? There's always this catch or gotcha.

 

[harryh]

Applauds.

 

[sniper]

Re:

Nice bit of faux indignation, hoggy.

It looks like a single page from a document, you don't know what is on other pages or whether anything apart from that page was produced before you start proclaiming your disappointment.

Edit: and just to clarify, I receive faxes without stamps or signatures all the time. They do have a disclaimer stating that they are valid anyway, but it seems that many people here would think that they are being pranked were they to receive one.

in this post you're addressing a fraction of the things that are odd about the 2007 fax and data, and that's being generous.
occam's razor should apply by now: amateuristic data forgery.

 

[djpbaltimore]

Moore did say that the documents were verified before publication. I doubt he would have any role in the imaging of the documents. He is only a writer after all.

 

[thehog]

Re:

Moore did say that the documents were verified before publication. I doubt he would have any role in the imaging of the documents. He is only a writer after all.

You're right. He's just the author and put his name to the article, can't blame the journalist for overlooking clearly dodgy looking documents that people here picked up in about 5 minutes...

We need to give him a break for the article he stands by and was paid to write

 

[djpbaltimore]

Have you seen the original documents to make that claim? We have seen digital representations of those 'dodgy' documents.

 

[thehog]

Re:

Have you seen the original documents to make that claim? We have seen digital representations of those 'dodgy' documents.

Has Moore?

He authored and published the the article. He's still fact checking the docs. You should be taking it up with him, not me. I requested an explaination, none forthcoming.

Let's be more forensic about this; why two differing documents, why is the BMI out of sync with the weight? Why are these strange scuff marks on either document in differing but random places on the page? Why do the marks work themselves under the printed text? Punch holes? Misaligned pages....

Should I go on?

 

[Poursuivant]

Re:

Moore did say that the documents were verified before publication. I doubt he would have any role in the imaging of the documents. He is only a writer after all.

If Swart comes out tomorrow with the original 2007 files, people on here will just shift focus to something else, like Froome's weight, Tour of Poland, Inhalers etc. And the squabbling and nit picking over whether Times New Roman was around in 2007 will be forgotten. That's the great advantage about being a skeptic: you can just keep questioning and questioning, it doesn't matter that you claim something smells fishy because then if you get shown to be wrong, you can shift the argument and point at something else and can afford to be wrong over and over, whereas Froome cannot make the slightest mistake without it being analysed relentlessly. Because with the Froome story there is never going to be a 100% accepted answer to his transformation in 2011, it is Cycling's groundhog day.

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

Moore did say that the documents were verified before publication. I doubt he would have any role in the imaging of the documents. He is only a writer after all.

If Swart comes out tomorrow with the original 2007 files, people on here will just shift focus to something else, like Froome's weight, Tour of Poland, Inhalers etc. And the squabbling and nit picking over whether Times New Roman was around in 2007 will be forgotten. That's the great advantage about being a skeptic: you can just keep questioning and questioning, it doesn't matter that you claim something smells fishy because then if you get shown to be wrong, you can shift the argument and point at something else and can afford to be wrong over and over, whereas Froome cannot make the slightest mistake without it being analysed relentlessly. Because with the Froome story there is never going to be a 100% accepted answer to his transformation in 2011, it is Cycling's groundhog day.

If Swart had the original 2007 files he would have said so.... after the fact when the question has been raised would be worrying.

Alas he has already stated he hasn't seen anything other than the doc we have seen.

 

[bewildered]

there's never going to be an answer to froome's transformation in 2011 if nobody asks him specifically to explain it.

 

[djpbaltimore]

Re: Re:

Have you seen the original documents to make that claim? We have seen digital representations of those 'dodgy' documents.

Has Moore?

He authored and published the the article. He's still fact checking the docs. You should be taking it up with him, not me. I requested an explaination, none forthcoming.

Let's be more forensic about this; why two differing documents, why is the BMI out of sync with the weight? Why are these strange scuff marks on either document in differing but random places on the page? Why do the marks work themselves under the printed text? Punch holes? Misaligned pages....

Should I go on?

Maybe you should take that up with him. And he is NOT still fact-checking the docs. He is fact-checking about what the graphics people did regarding the digital representations of the documents and where one news agency got the copy of the document. That is a potentially big difference, correct?

Formatting aside, is there a question of whether the 2007 data is falsified or not? The scientists do not seem to think so as they are moving forward with publication. As I stated earlier, that makes the faxes largely irrelevant.

@poursuivant. Agree 100% with your post.

 

[Electress]

All labs have QA QC procedures and internal review. I am surprised that basic verification of source materialwasn't applied here: chain of custody is imposed for samples etc to prevent tampering (and other things) but data on a sheet of paper with apparently *** all supporting docs or external corroboration is just accepted? This isn't from 'trusted colleagues' he's writing a paper with, this is paid consultancy from a guy caught up - rightly or wrongly in a controversy in a sport with a damn awful history. Swart was naive indeed.

I'm curious if cycling weekly have stated they cleaned up the documents and how (and frankly, why, if its true)
Highlighted text by esquire is the tip of the iceberg.

I'm glad more verification is being done - not least because I think journos like Moore need to be far more rigorous than they are being. Perhaps it might encourage them to ask a few more questions themselves instead of being cheerleaders and myth builders for anyone.

Those dismissing the BMI and all this stuff don't seem to have the first idea about how damaging these little chips to veracity are to the trust in 2007 reports credibility. Again - if those receiving the information and writing articles had applied more rigor at the outset, this 'trivial' stuff could have been handled very easily (unless the was after all, some 'skulduggery'

(I might add that I've worked with Third Party data on consultancy projects many times and conclusions always come with a gigantic caveat up front. It's origins were generally questioned too, but maybe I just am a cynic and don't Entirely trust all the people I've worked for) Moore writing his article first probably hasn't helped Swart, as the looser reporting style doesn't lend itself to clarity of scope and responsibility etc that might well have been made very clear in Swarts paper.)

I look forward to see what the labs can dig up though.

(Re the weight - anyone done some 'sensitivity' calls? Seems to me a little variance here makes a lot of difference to plausibility)

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

Have you seen the original documents to make that claim? We have seen digital representations of those 'dodgy' documents.

Has Moore?

He authored and published the the article. He's still fact checking the docs. You should be taking it up with him, not me. I requested an explaination, none forthcoming.

Let's be more forensic about this; why two differing documents, why is the BMI out of sync with the weight? Why are these strange scuff marks on either document in differing but random places on the page? Why do the marks work themselves under the printed text? Punch holes? Misaligned pages....

Should I go on?

Maybe you should take that up with him. And he is NOT still fact-checking the docs. He is fact-checking about what the graphics people did regarding the digital representations of the documents and where one news agency got the copy of the document. That is a potentially big difference, correct?

Formatting aside, is there a question of whether the 2007 data is falsified or not? The scientists do not seem to think so as they are moving forward with publication. As I stated earlier, that makes the faxes largely irrelevant.

@poursuivant. Agree 100% with your post.

Thanks. Which document though? The original or the other original? I'm confused by which documents they now mean. I'm sure it will all be cleaned up by the next publication.

I do jest but it really shouldn't be this hard. They've been building to this since August. Why is there always a double take with Froome?

 

[observer]

why on earth would someone falsify parts of a document? wouldn't you just falsify the whole thing? I would.

 

[thehog]

Re:

why on earth would someone falsify parts of a document? wouldn't you just falsify the whole thing? I would.

If it were a reproduction of a 2015 document, then yes, falsify the whole lot. If you're trying to make it look like a document from 2007 then one tends to go overboard on the old styled photocopier/scan markings and forgets to updates the BMI. Along with forgetting it really should just be a reprinted electronic document. Why all the markings anyway? Unless you're wound up in the belief that it's meant to be a mystery document that's just been discovered as detailed in Moore's story.

 

[acoggan]

Re:

So a couple of days on and anyone have still not come up with a good explanation about the two copies of the fax Cound unearthed and the 2007 Dawg does not look like any 16.9% body fat cyclist I know.

Now for acoogan swart and the scientists. These two are busy writing their analysis of the data, but I have another teensie, weensie conundrum for them.

Our hero is hailed for his wide range of skills. One of those skill sets that enabled him to soar above the common herd was nicely described in this article from the Guardian.
http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2013/jul/19/chris-froome-kenyan-tour-de-france
Now I know that Chris and his wife are nearly as quick off the draw with their legal team, as Paula is, in getting them to contact any newspaper that prints unfounded allegations so I presume what is written is true. It would have had to pass the Cound/Froome "approval" test.


"Brailsford and Froome's paths crossed next at the world championships in Salzburg that year, after the youngster had hacked into the Hotmail account of the Kenyan cycling association to get his race entry in."

And my my, here is another take on that same episode. This time from the Telegraph - if you doubt my sincerity, you can read it here - after all Chris Froome hacking into someone's hotmail account and sending a false email pretending to be someone else - it is stranger than fiction isn't it ? You just wouldn't credit what some scalawags might get up to !

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/cycling/tour-de-france/10144509/Tour-de-France-2013-the-incredible-rise-of-Chris-Froome-and-how-he-was-almost-killed-by-a-hippo.html

“He wanted to compete in the [under-23) world championships but the federation wouldn’t sanction it. But he was smart. We would read all their emails and we basically forged the entry forms to allow him to compete and kept it a big secret.”

What did I read there - his bestest mate kept the deception about the forgery a big secret ? Good job a super hero has mates who know when to keep their mouths shut isn't it.

Well I never, gosh ! A very good job lightning doesn't strike twice in the same place isn't it !

So acoggan and Prof Swart given a track record like that, would you really put your professional reputation on an 8 year old document that has suddenly been found by Mrs Froome, daughter of a World Champ body builder and age group cyclist, (who I rather doubt many would bet 10p on having achieved her "unique" body shape on bread and water alone), and Mrs Froome, with only millions of pounds of her husband's income at stake, along with lifestyle and reputation all in the balance, vested in respect of proving Mr Froome thrashed the times of dopers Lance and Pantani up the hills?

Well if you would invest your personal reputation on a document of such unproven provenance then I take my hat off to you - a braver man than I Gunga Din. May your god look after you.

I haven't a clue why you're directing your question at me. I was asked by Laura Weislo to comment on Froome's physiology, and did so under the assumption that the data as presented are correct. Indeed, given that I have no more access to the raw numbers, etc., than anyone else here (and much less stomach for conspiracy theories), that's all I really could do.

 

[Jacques de Molay]

Re: Re:

the scratch marks etc. suggest they had to literally retreive that document from under the carpet where it had been shoved under in 2011 when chris transformed

The text in the document is on AICAR as its able to superimpose itself over the old copier/scratch marks... truly amazing

I'm sorry but wtf is that post about???

I was wondering that too, but it only just hit me now.
Hog was just having some fun by suggesting that the text itself must be "doped" (on AICAR) as it appears to be doing something unnatural in his eyes (superimposing itself over scratch marks). I was looking at the enlarged image for something relating to AICAR, but only because I missed the original pun.

2016 is only just over 3 weeks away ...

I was just about to make that same point. There's nothing dramatic about having to wait until January (which I believe is when they said more info would be released).

 

[Jacques de Molay]

where in the article does it state that Michelle hired Swart? That seems to be an unsubstantiated claim to attack his integrity.

It's right there, in the middle of it all.

When Froome decided to answer the critics and submit to physiological testing, his wife Michelle Cound reached out to Swart, who Froome had met backstage at the South African television station SuperSport, where they were both booked for a segment in 2011. They kept in touch occasionally, and then Cound reached out during this year's Tour de France.

"After all the abuse he suffered, I got a call out of the blue from Michelle, who asked whether I'd be interested in doing the testing," Swart said.

 

[Jacques de Molay]

I don't think enough credit is being given to Swart for what he is actually saying about this and future testing.

More testing in the future

Swart and his research team wanted to perform a test with Froome on the open road, rather than confine the measurements only to the artificial environment of a laboratory. But since they squeezed the test in between Froome's appearances at post-Tour criteriums and the Vuelta a Espana, they were limited to the area around the London GSK lab, and couldn't find a suitable ascent.

"Chris gave us carte blanche to decide what tests we wanted to do. We were interested in doing a field test, which we probably will still do, but it didn't work out that well. We couldn't find a climb long enough near London. We thought about Box Hill, but it was too short to do a steady state test. So we decided to do the test in the lab," Swart said.

He added that Froome is open to doing more testing in the coming year. "At all times, we've indicated this is just the start of the testing. He's open to doing further testing as time goes by. This wasn't just a one-off.

There's obviously a lot more to come. And now that Swart has publicly acknowledged that, I think that all parties involved would have a very difficult time backpedalling on such promises.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

The legitimacy of the 2015 test results requires the 2007 results to be a true record. Doing more testing is not useful whatsoever to showing anything about his clean ability or subsequent quantum shift in 2011.

 

[Jacques de Molay]

Re:

Doing more testing is not useful whatsoever to showing anything about his clean ability or subsequent quantum shift in 2011.

Agreed.

I was just emphasizing the possibility that many of the questions being raised about these recent tests may well be answered in the coming months. I'd be very curious to see what kind of numbers Froome would produce in a field test, on the road. I'm also curious to see what kind of numbers he could produce in a more rested state, as he claimed to have been tired, and that he feels he could outdo himself under more agreeable conditions (and stated that he is willing to do just that).

And who knows, maybe Contador and some other might follow suit. That would also be interesting.

However, 2011 and the quantum shift may very well remain a mystery.

 

[Jacques de Molay]

And there's more.

http://cyclingtips.com.au/2015/12/t...-results-his-conclusions-and-what-comes-next/

Testing Chris Froome: what does the physiologist who conducted the tests make of the data?
by Shane Stokes
December 9, 2015

CyclingTips spoke in detail to Dr Swart about this subject, about what other testing he hopes to do with Froome and also what else the Briton could do to show he is clean.

Well worth the read. Out of respect for Shane, I don't want to quote any of it here just yet.

Note: This interview has been edited for clarity and length.

But not entirely proof-read.