The Froome Files, test data only thread

[djpbaltimore]

Jeroen Swart ‏@JeroenSwart Dec 10
@Reid_Rothschild Christopher. Please move on. You clearly haven't read any of my comments or the interviews. Please go do that first.

Jeroen Swart ‏@JeroenSwart Dec 10
@Reid_Rothschild otherwise you are just wasting both your time and my time. I'm not entertaining you further.

Pretty over the top stuff, especially compared to the dignified stuff you normally find on twitter.

EDIT. And the context for the above exchange was reported wrong by Sniper.

 

[thehog]

The concern being this was a hatchet job on Vayer more than testing on Froome. I'm not sure beating up on a person who's English is their second language is entirely admirable.

 

[motty89]

The concern being this was a hatchet job on Vayer more than testing on Froome. I'm not sure beating up on a person who's English is their second language is entirely admirable.

But that was Moore wasn't it, not Swart?

Seems like a lot of people are criticising and questioning the integrity of Swart from one off the cuff comment to Moore about comparing 07-15 data.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Re: Re:

He should've done his research into Froome's career before coming to conclusion, 'Weight loss' !

I think that is a very good point but I addressed that in my previous post. A scientist in the true word wouldnt take a fax, as it seems a not very reliable fax, for true without a shadow of a doubt.

The concern being this was a hatchet job on Vayer more than testing on Froome. I'm not sure beating up on a person who's English is their second language is entirely admirable.

Nah, dont think so.

 

[thehog]

The concern being this was a hatchet job on Vayer more than testing on Froome. I'm not sure beating up on a person who's English is their second language is entirely admirable.

But that was Moore wasn't it, not Swart?

Seems like a lot of people are criticising and questioning the integrity of Swart from one off the cuff comment to Moore about comparing 07-15 data.

Of course he took two datapoints 8 years apart and ignored everything else in between. Genius

Shades of the Keys seven countries study.

Keys collected data on deaths from coronary heart disease and fat consumption from 22 countries. Despite the fact that 22 countries provided statistics, Keys cherry-picked the data from the 7 countries which supported his theory that animal fat was the main cause of coronary heart disease in order to publicize his opinions. The results of what later became known as the “Seven Countries Study” appeared to show that serum cholesterol was strongly related to coronary heart disease mortality both at the population and at the individual level.

 

[djpbaltimore]

That is a terrible analogy. Or do you claim that Swart had access to other data and choose to suppress it intentionally? That would be tantamount to scientific fraud.

 

[thehog]

Re:

That is a terrible analogy. Or do you claim that Swart had access to other data and choose to suppress it intentionally? That would be tantamount to scientific fraud.

It's a very good analogy.

You mean Swart didn't ask the subject for his power files over the time period so he could test the "he just lost fat" theory?

That's culpable not to mention negligent.

 

[djpbaltimore]

How do you know that he didn't ask Froome for the data?

What you have now shifted the goalposts to is quite a bit different from scientific fraud. You should address my point about your earlier spurious claim.

 

[gillan1969]

Re: Re:

That is a terrible analogy. Or do you claim that Swart had access to other data and choose to suppress it intentionally? That would be tantamount to scientific fraud.

It's a very good analogy.

You mean Swart didn't ask the subject for his power files over the time period so he could test the "he just lost fat" theory?

That's culpable not to mention negligent.

absolutely...pinot's are out there..

Moore: "I want to the article to investigate how Froome transformed....how he got t this point. We could ask Chris for all his files from the last 6 years which he and sky have saved on computers or....try and get hold of whatever info we can get from, say, one day in 2007? Files really easy to get, we just ask Chris. No entirely sure we can get anything from earlier" Which would best complement your sudy Swart?

Swart "eh...a single data point in 2007 will do just fine" "Don't worry about provenance"

Moore "are you sure you're a real scientist? I mean I studied english but....."

 

[djpbaltimore]

Re: Re:

absolutely...pinot's are out there..

Moore: "I want to the article to investigate how Froome transformed....how he got t this point. We could ask Chris for all his files from the last 6 years which he and sky have saved on computers or....try and get hold of whatever info we can get from, say, one day in 2007? Files really easy to get, we just ask Chris. No entirely sure we can get anything from earlier" Which would best complement your sudy Swart?

Swart "eh...a single data point in 2007 will do just fine" "Don't worry about provenance"

Moore "are you sure you're a real scientist? I mean I studied english but....."

Why would Pinot's numbers be relevant to the analysis of Froome?

Is making up quotes for real people allowed in the forum?

 

[Rollthedice]

Swart was/is just a tool in Michelle's PR campaign. The idea is to prove "scientifically" that Froome is a great athlete capable "physiologically" to win Le Tour. All you need is a lab, a few scientists who would approve, a fax and an article in Esquire written by somebody who is part of the PR team. To expect that this team would come to other conclusions than it was probably clearly stated by Michelle PR machine is wrong. All the power files between the fax and the lab in 2015 are well hidden. And so are the blood values.

 

[MacRoadie]

Re: Re:

Why would Pinot's numbers be relevant to the analysis of Froome?

Now you're just being obtuse.

As has been mentioned about 30 times in this thread alone, Pinot has released "all" his training and racing data for the past 6 years, data that EVERY cyclist and their team competing at the WT level has ready access to.

The tongue in cheek suggestion is that if Pinot's data is out there, why can't or didn't Froome release his as well, or the scientists involved in the Esquire article request it?

READILY AVAILABLE

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

Why would Pinot's numbers be relevant to the analysis of Froome?

Now you're just being obtuse.

A scratchy, faded, over copied fax trumps 8 years of data, who would of thought?

 

[djpbaltimore]

Re: Re:

Why would Pinot's numbers be relevant to the analysis of Froome?

Now you're just being obtuse.

How so? The original argument was that Froome's data from intervening years was not analyzed. How would Pinot's data be a help in any way? This is a case study after all.

 

[MacRoadie]

Re: Re:

Why would Pinot's numbers be relevant to the analysis of Froome?

Now you're just being obtuse.

How so? The original argument was that Froome's data from intervening years was not analyzed. How would Pinot's data be a help in any way? This is a case study after all.

As has been mentioned about 30 times in this thread alone, Pinot has released "all" his training and racing data for the past 6 years, data that EVERY cyclist and their team competing at the WT level has ready access to.

The tongue in cheek suggestion is that if Pinot's data is out there, why can't or didn't Froome release his as well, or the scientists involved in the Esquire article request it?

READILY AVAILABLE

 

[djpbaltimore]

I'm well aware of what Pinot has released. That is besides the point, considering the context of the quote. Pinot's data does not aid in a scientist's ability to analyze another cyclist. Feel free to criticize Froome for not releasing more data, but the spurious assumption by thehog that Froome's personal data was cherrypicked is not supported by a shred of evidence. And the fact that Pinot had been transparent is a credit to him, but it is not relevant to this discussion.

 

[acoggan]

Re: Re:

That is a terrible analogy. Or do you claim that Swart had access to other data and choose to suppress it intentionally? That would be tantamount to scientific fraud.

It's a very good analogy.

You mean Swart didn't ask the subject for his power files over the time period so he could test the "he just lost fat" theory?

Having access to Froome's power data would only tell you how he transformed if they showed no increase in absolute power. In that case, any improvement in his performance (placings) would have to be due to other factors, e.g., reduced body mass, improved aerodynamics, better "racecraft", altered focus/role, etc.

OTOH, if his power went up in absolute terms, you still wouldn't know the mechanism, e.g., whether it was due to an improvement in muscular metabolic fitness and/or efficiency, or any increase in VO2max due to microdosing with EPO.

Note that the same logic applies to Pinot, i.e., his release of extensive power data doesn't tell you why he has improved, only that he has. In that regard, it is as much a PR exercise as Froome's release of his physiological data.

Finally, also note that even if you had both longitudinal physiological data and longitudinal power data, it still wouldn't tell you whether or not someone was doping.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

I can only wish it was due to "muscular efficiency improvement". That would complete the USPostal - UKPostal circle.

AS for your contention that physiological data wouldn't tell you whether someone was doping, well ... that puts the ABP into a light you would be hard pressed to sell to anyone.

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

That is a terrible analogy. Or do you claim that Swart had access to other data and choose to suppress it intentionally? That would be tantamount to scientific fraud.

It's a very good analogy.

You mean Swart didn't ask the subject for his power files over the time period so he could test the "he just lost fat" theory?

Having access to Froome's power data would only tell you how he transformed if they showed no increase in absolute power. In that case, any improvement in his performance (placings) would have to be due to other factors, e.g., reduced body mass, improved aerodynamics, better "racecraft", altered focus/role, etc.

OTOH, if his power went up in absolute terms, you still wouldn't know the mechanism, e.g., whether it was due to an improvement in muscular metabolic fitness and/or efficiency, or any increase in VO2max due to microdosing with EPO.

Note that the same logic applies to Pinot, i.e., his release of extensive power data doesn't tell you why he has improved, only that he has. In that regard, it is as much a PR exercise as Froome's release of his physiological data.

Finally, also note that even if you had both longitudinal physiological data and longitudinal power data, it still wouldn't tell you whether or not someone was doping.

True. I wasn't making a statement on doping or not doping...


More so the "he just lost fat" headline; if Froome's recorded weight (stored in PM) was transected across the power profile over those years then you could correlate the claim, was it fat/weight loss or was it 'something' else.

 

[MacRoadie]

Re: Re:

That is a terrible analogy. Or do you claim that Swart had access to other data and choose to suppress it intentionally? That would be tantamount to scientific fraud.

It's a very good analogy.

You mean Swart didn't ask the subject for his power files over the time period so he could test the "he just lost fat" theory?

Having access to Froome's power data would only tell you how he transformed if they showed no increase in absolute power. In that case, any improvement in his performance (placings) would have to be due to other factors, e.g., reduced body mass, improved aerodynamics, better "racecraft", altered focus/role, etc.

OTOH, if his power went up in absolute terms, you still wouldn't know the mechanism, e.g., whether it was due to an improvement in muscular metabolic fitness and/or efficiency, or any increase in VO2max due to microdosing with EPO.

Note that the same logic applies to Pinot, i.e., his release of extensive power data doesn't tell you why he has improved, only that he has. In that regard, it is as much a PR exercise as Froome's release of his physiological data.

Finally, also note that even if you had both longitudinal physiological data and longitudinal power data, it still wouldn't tell you whether or not someone was doping.

True, and I was going to clarify that point (re: only power data being released by Pinot), but the argument remains that these are WT riders who have significant physiological data and profiles available for review by the proper parties under the proper conditions.

The argument made by Armstrong and others over the years has always been not that the data doesn't exist, but that releasing it to the general public (and more likely the hounds of the Clinic) would lead to improper interpretation or skewing of the data.

Does that mean that these guys are making regular/annual trips to the lab/ergo/wind tunnel? Of course not, but there is very likely at least some level of additional pertinent data available regarding Froome in the intervening years between 2007 and 2015.

I'm not sure anyone is suggesting any of this would either confirm or refute doping, but it certainly would assist in clarifying some of the asserted physiological "transformations".

 

[MacRoadie]

On a side note, this may be the first time in 6 or 7 years that Hoggy and I have been in agreement on anything...

 

[gillan1969]

Re:

I'm well aware of what Pinot has released. That is besides the point, considering the context of the quote. Pinot's data does not aid in a scientist's ability to analyze another cyclist. Feel free to criticize Froome for not releasing more data, but the spurious assumption by thehog that Froome's personal data was cherrypicked is not supported by a shred of evidence. And the fact that Pinot had been transparent is a credit to him, but it is not relevant to this discussion.

feel free to criticize Froome????

Swart has already claimed Froome has done more than anyone else when he obviously and blatantly hasn't...which even you now seem to acknowledge...did he get it wrong as he is daft...or because he has an agenda? which?

 

[acoggan]

Re:

AS for your contention that physiological data wouldn't tell you whether someone was doping, well ... that puts the ABP into a light you would be hard pressed to sell to anyone.

I meant things like VO2max, etc.

 

[gillan1969]

Re: Re:

That is a terrible analogy. Or do you claim that Swart had access to other data and choose to suppress it intentionally? That would be tantamount to scientific fraud.

It's a very good analogy.

You mean Swart didn't ask the subject for his power files over the time period so he could test the "he just lost fat" theory?

Having access to Froome's power data would only tell you how he transformed if they showed no increase in absolute power. In that case, any improvement in his performance (placings) would have to be due to other factors, e.g., reduced body mass, improved aerodynamics, better "racecraft", altered focus/role, etc.

OTOH, if his power went up in absolute terms, you still wouldn't know the mechanism, e.g., whether it was due to an improvement in muscular metabolic fitness and/or efficiency, or any increase in VO2max due to microdosing with EPO.

Note that the same logic applies to Pinot, i.e., his release of extensive power data doesn't tell you why he has improved, only that he has. In that regard, it is as much a PR exercise as Froome's release of his physiological data.

Finally, also note that even if you had both longitudinal physiological data and longitudinal power data, it still wouldn't tell you whether or not someone was doping.

True, and I was going to clarify that point (re: only power data being released by Pinot), but the argument remains that these are WT riders who have significant physiological data and profiles available for review by the proper parties under the proper conditions.

The argument made by Armstrong and others over the years has always been not that the data doesn't exist, but that releasing it to the general public (and more likely the hounds of the Clinic) would lead to improper interpretation or skewing of the data.

Does that mean that these guys are making regular/annual trips to the lab/ergo/wind tunnel? Of course not, but there is very likely at least some level of additional pertinent data available regarding Froome in the intervening years between 2007 and 2015.

I'm not sure anyone is suggesting any of this would either confirm or refute doping, but it certainly would assist in clarifying some of the asserted physiological "transformations".

indeed...even if not under lab conditions, it would be difficult manufacture spurious data (or inconsistent data) over a 6 year period.................on one fax however...

 

[acoggan]

Re: Re:

More so the "he just lost fat" headline; if Froome's recorded weight (stored in PM) was transected across the power profile over those years then you could correlate the claim, was it fat/weight loss or was it 'something' else.

Powermeters are not scales (or at least that's not what they are intended to be). Any data for body mass stored in a power file somewhere would therefore simply be what was entered into it.