The Froome Files, test data only thread

[Ventoux Boar]

Re: Re:

The Froome 2 week transformation prior to '11 Vuelta has not been explained by the data. That has long been decided, in fact many times it has been agreed. That people keep discussing the data is neither here nor there. The 'independent' tests were done not to appease the clinic or those who doubt, but to keep those wavering in their belief onside that Froome is some kind of physiological miracle. They have given those fans the perfect catch phrase 'weight loss'... and lots as witnessed here in this thread fell for it.

That Sky have not been able to explain away the transformation of a guy that they themselves wanted to rid to GT superstar should be enough for anyone with a lick of logic to point to doping, add on all the lies, misinformation, talk of marginal gains, beating Armstrong's madone record and we have the classic case of rider ups PED program to stay in the sport.

This will always be the issue. The transformation was just so sudden. It wasn't incremental or bit by bit he got better as he shed more weight and got over Badzhilla.

It was from one race to the next in two weeks and went from very average to very very good. There's simply not a 'clean' explanation for it.

A combination of team orders, minor illness, team disarray, poor motivation etc could explain a Sky domestique without a guaranteed contract finishing far below his potential. Since we now know (discounting suggestion that 2007 lab results are fake) he always had the potential these factors seem more likely than a lazarus pill.

That's silly. He was still under team orders at the 2011 Vuelta, he helped Wiggins all of week one and could still go full Cobo on Cobo.

Besides it still doesn't explain the two week transformation. The sudden overnight hyper-increase in form, never able to show it prior? Maybe just once or twice?

Interesting that bilharzia has now been downgraded in skylore to "minor illness".

Also quite funny how minor illnesses kept him in the gruppeto for 5 years, not a single top result in that time, but the very major illness froome had on alpe d huez when his team was wondering if he should even ride and he had no tue's could not stop him from beating contador and others on that climb.

I was thinking of a chest infection or similar. He seems prone to those.

 

[pastronef]

Re: Re:

This pretty much sums it up. The believers will believe whatever bs Brailsford and his mouthpiece Richard Moore come out with. The face that Froome is dirty is obvious to anyone who knows bike racing. As with the Armstrong case, the facts will come out over time as more and more people hear about it and as Brailsford gets greedy and makes mistakes.

It's my opinion that, at some point Cound may turn and spill all kinds of ****, someday when the gravy train is no longer providing (and Dawg is so unmarketable, he's not going to have a long-term, rest of his life status like an Indurain, LeMond, Contador, Vinokourov, hell, even Wiggins). She comes across to me like a person mostly after her own interests, fame, etc. Some of the behavior is bizarre if looked at from the standpoint of helping, rather than hurting Dawg's public image. And she seems not to be overly fond of Brailsford/Sky regime.

As far as the latest data release - to me, this is just noise, a distraction, and not really worth much as far as answering questions. It's just Coyle and Lance's heart of a pumpkin all over again.

That makes no sense, if there is nothing legal going on she will not say a thing. There are still people 'covering' for LA, and not much of a peep our of god-fearing Kristin. Of course, we don't know what has gone on that is not public knowledge.

No, I meant later on after the relationship goes sour. Her way to stay "famous." Tabloid tell-all type of stuff.
And Cound is not Kik, not by a long shot. Kik never wore the pants in that family.

how did you invent/foresee that?

 

[Spawn of e]

Re: Re:

No, I meant later on after the relationship goes sour. Her way to stay "famous." Tabloid tell-all type of stuff.
And Cound is not Kik, not by a long shot. Kik never wore the pants in that family.

You could say that about any wife of any champion in the past or present. I find it hard to believe that Cound is the only one that has the makeup to spill secrets. There comes a point in time when you realize all the shitstorm that would result from spilling, and it is just not worth it. We will see.

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

It's my opinion that, at some point Cound may turn and spill all kinds of ****, someday when the gravy train is no longer providing (and Dawg is so unmarketable, he's not going to have a long-term, rest of his life status like an Indurain, LeMond, Contador, Vinokourov, hell, even Wiggins). She comes across to me like a person mostly after her own interests, fame, etc. Some of the behavior is bizarre if looked at from the standpoint of helping, rather than hurting Dawg's public image. And she seems not to be overly fond of Brailsford/Sky regime.

As far as the latest data release - to me, this is just noise, a distraction, and not really worth much as far as answering questions. It's just Coyle and Lance's heart of a pumpkin all over again.

That makes no sense, if there is nothing legal going on she will not say a thing. There are still people 'covering' for LA, and not much of a peep our of god-fearing Kristin. Of course, we don't know what has gone on that is not public knowledge.

No, I meant later on after the relationship goes sour. Her way to stay "famous." Tabloid tell-all type of stuff.
And Cound is not Kik, not by a long shot. Kik never wore the pants in that family.

how did you invent/foresee that?

Her social media personality hints at it

 

[Spawn of e]

Re: Re:

Her social media personality hints at it

I dunno, Amanda Duffner is exhibit A for that and she hasn't started talking smack about Jason, yet.

 

[Irondan]

Please post comments to the topic at hand.

This thread is beginning to look like the Sky and Froome threads that are already open.

Any comments that are posted off topic will be deleted.

 

[djpbaltimore]

swart's 2015 testing has hardly been criticized.
it's been labeled useless to the point of being pointless, at least in the context of establishing if froome dopes.
that's the only criticism it has received, and that's justified.
subsequently people on twitter have attempted to enter with him in a discussion about doping, and about the validity of the 2007 tests, and about the value of the 2015 tests in the context of Froome doping.
In that discussion, Swart has shown his colors, gone full Sky-Froome bot, not able to address any arguments, blocking and/or insulting froome-doubters, being highly dismissive of any inquiries/doubts, and team-tagging with Sky-fans like Moore and/or rather dumb folks like Mark Burnley.

Tucker's opinion is irrelevant in this context. Tucker is always going to stay balanced, would be foolish to take sides, and/or make any personal comments, or go on a verbal battle with Jeroen. It'd be pointless.
They are colleagues, will be meeting in podcasts soon, but also later on in conferences, etc.
So Tucker has to show him due respect, regardless of what he really thinks of him.

This is now the third time that you have attempted to attack the credibility and integrity of Dr. Swart by calling him a Skybot. It should be pointed out that he has not claimed that Froome is clean. If he was a Skybot, wouldn't he do that? But why bother with pesky facts. You didn't seem to do any fact checking with the bolded. Moore and Dr. Swart did not engage in any tag teaming on twitter. Everything you report on the twitter comments IMO is slanted against fact and I think this is the reason why you never choose to post any of the comments themselves. It is easier to call someone 'dumb' than actually form a cogent argument to prove your point.

It is true that most scientists like Tucker would stay out of the fray and not get into the middle of an argument on twitter between colleagues. But it should be pointed out that Tucker was not asked to comment on Dr. Swart's integrity, he willingly volunteered his opinion. Does any sane individual think that a person would volunteer such a ringing endorsement if he secretly believed the opposite?

Ross Tucker ‏@Scienceofsport Dec 9
Ross Tucker Retweeted Jeroen Swart
I applaud all skepticism & constant questioning, but will say this: I believe @JeroenSwart to have integrity & (1/2)

Ross Tucker ‏@Scienceofsport Dec 9
Ross Tucker Retweeted Jeroen Swart
...honesty in addition to physiological expertise, so even if he was paid for time, I wouldn't focus on this (2/2)

Ross Tucker ‏@Scienceofsport Dec 9
Ross Tucker Retweeted Jeroen Swart
As I've said, I believe (like any good research) that the testing raised questions, I think supportive data might've

Ross Tucker ‏@Scienceofsport Dec 9
Ross Tucker Retweeted Jeroen Swart
...been added to complete the story (the 'data shadow') but this is 1 person who won't knowingly manipulate data

 

[sniper]

not sure what the point of posting those Tucker tweets is.
nobody argues Swart manipulated any data.

twitter's interface sucks too hard for me to go look for old tweets, but Swart definitely went to length to dismiss any insinuations that froome might be doping and that the 2007 data might not be kosjer. Whether or not he literally said he thinks froome is clean, i don't know, i never said he did.
From an objective scientific viewpoint, he looked like a unsympathetic biased sell out, incapable of staying objective, providing strawmen, deflections, and insults, the whole Walsh repertoir except Walsh doesnt insult that much.
That's all i'm saying.

 

[gillan1969]

swart's 2015 testing has hardly been criticized.
it's been labeled useless to the point of being pointless, at least in the context of establishing if froome dopes.
that's the only criticism it has received, and that's justified.
subsequently people on twitter have attempted to enter with him in a discussion about doping, and about the validity of the 2007 tests, and about the value of the 2015 tests in the context of Froome doping.
In that discussion, Swart has shown his colors, gone full Sky-Froome bot, not able to address any arguments, blocking and/or insulting froome-doubters, being highly dismissive of any inquiries/doubts, and team-tagging with Sky-fans like Moore and/or rather dumb folks like Mark Burnley.

Tucker's opinion is irrelevant in this context. Tucker is always going to stay balanced, would be foolish to take sides, and/or make any personal comments, or go on a verbal battle with Jeroen. It'd be pointless.
They are colleagues, will be meeting in podcasts soon, but also later on in conferences, etc.
So Tucker has to show him due respect, regardless of what he really thinks of him.

This is now the third time that you have attempted to attack the credibility and integrity of Dr. Swart by calling him a Skybot. It should be pointed out that he has not claimed that Froome is clean. If he was a Skybot, wouldn't he do that? But why bother with pesky facts. You didn't seem to do any fact checking with the bolded. Moore and Dr. Swart did not engage in any tag teaming on twitter. Everything you report on the twitter comments IMO is slanted against fact and I think this is the reason why you never choose to post any of the comments themselves. It is easier to call someone 'dumb' than actually form a cogent argument to prove your point.

It is true that most scientists like Tucker would stay out of the fray and not get into the middle of an argument on twitter between colleagues. But it should be pointed out that Tucker was not asked to comment on Dr. Swart's integrity, he willingly volunteered his opinion. Does any sane individual think that a person would volunteer such a ringing endorsement if he secretly believed the opposite?

Ross Tucker ‏@Scienceofsport Dec 9
Ross Tucker Retweeted Jeroen Swart
I applaud all skepticism & constant questioning, but will say this: I believe @JeroenSwart to have integrity & (1/2)

Ross Tucker ‏@Scienceofsport Dec 9
Ross Tucker Retweeted Jeroen Swart
...honesty in addition to physiological expertise, so even if he was paid for time, I wouldn't focus on this (2/2)

Ross Tucker ‏@Scienceofsport Dec 9
Ross Tucker Retweeted Jeroen Swart
As I've said, I believe (like any good research) that the testing raised questions, I think supportive data might've

Ross Tucker ‏@Scienceofsport Dec 9
Ross Tucker Retweeted Jeroen Swart
...been added to complete the story (the 'data shadow') but this is 1 person who won't knowingly manipulate data

DJP...you seem to be missing the issue...

it's because of his integrity he is useful....the headlines have already been written...and they are nothing to do with the 2015 tests...the headlines are that Froome was always good but he lost weight...the twitter storm and some ill judged comments are the important part of Swart's work for SKY (Moore already being onside and knowing his job). Sir Dave has maintained radio silience...despite this being about his top rider

he of course knows he doesn't have to speak...his work is being done for him...step forward Swart (and his not so smart mate burnley). Nobody is attacking Swart's actual work (yet)...its his role....and that role he is not in control of.

It's because this is in the 'introduction to media manipulation and professional cycling' chapter 1 (with large inset - Lance Armstrong - case study) that he is being met with criticism...its all been seen and done before...despite Swart's lavish words about the robes...we all know Froome has nothing on.

Why?

Because he has nothing on.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Re:

not sure what the point of posting those Tucker tweets is.
nobody argues Swart manipulated any data.

twitter's interface sucks too hard for me to go look for old tweets, but Swart definitely went to length to dismiss any insinuations that froome might be doping and that the 2007 data might not be kosjer. Whether or not he literally said he thinks froome is clean, i don't know, i never said he did.
From an objective scientific viewpoint, he looked like a unsympathetic biased sell out, incapable of staying objective, providing strawmen, deflections, and insults, the whole Walsh repertoir except Walsh doesnt insult that much.
That's all i'm saying.

He insulted people. Needlessly. If you are 100% confident in your data you should rest on that premise.

 

[sniper]

As for Moore and Swart: both arrived quickly on the scene when people posted that 2006 Common Wealth dataset suggesting Froome weighed 68kg, both eagerly pointing out to the conspiracists how that weight must be false, since his height was also false.
All good and well. But boy were they silent when that 2007 BMI number turned out to be false.
Pure botting.

 

[Ventoux Boar]

Re:

As for Moore and Swart: both arrived quickly on the scene when people posted that 2006 Common Wealth dataset suggesting Froome weighed 68kg, both eagerly pointing out to the conspiracists how that weight must be false, since his height was also false.
All good and well. But boy were they silent when that 2007 BMI number turned out to be false.
Pure botting.

The only person to survive this exercise with their scientific integrity unchallenged is Antoine Vayer.

 

[djpbaltimore]

DJP...you seem to be missing the issue...

it's because of his integrity he is useful....the headlines have already been written...and they are nothing to do with the 2015 tests...the headlines are that Froome was always good but he lost weight...the twitter storm and some ill judged comments are the important part of Swart's work for SKY(Moore already being onside and knowing his job). Sir Dave has maintained radio silience...despite this being about his top rider

he of course knows he doesn't have to speak...his work is being done for him...step forward Swart (and his not so smart mate burnley). Nobody is attacking Swart's actual work (yet)...its his role....and that role he is not in control of.

It's because this is in the 'introduction to media manipulation and professional cycling' chapter 1 (with large inset - Lance Armstrong - case study) that he is being met with criticism...its all been seen and done before...despite Swart's lavish words about the robes...we all know Froome has nothing on.

Why?

Because he has nothing on.

Hmmmm... so you weren't attacking his work with the post below? I think you are the one missing the point, gillan1969. Attacking his character now is designed to minimize his findings before they even hit the presses IMO. It is done because some have already surmised what the conclusions MIGHT be. Plus you couldn't even manage to make an entire post without throwing in an ad hominem attack. Remember, Dr. Burnley schooled Vayer on Math just yesterday. What is your opinion on Vayer's intellect? (rhetorical question)

viewtopic.php?p=1846370#p1846370

 

[sniper]

we're not discussing vayer.
stop using his name to deflect.

 

[djpbaltimore]

swart's 2015 testing has hardly been criticized.
it's been labeled useless to the point of being pointless, at least in the context of establishing if froome dopes.
that's the only criticism it has received, and that's justified.
subsequently people on twitter have attempted to enter with him in a discussion about doping, and about the validity of the 2007 tests, and about the value of the 2015 tests in the context of Froome doping.
In that discussion, Swart has shown his colors, gone full Sky-Froome bot, not able to address any arguments, blocking and/or insulting froome-doubters, being highly dismissive of any inquiries/doubts, and team-tagging with Sky-fans like Moore and/or rather dumb folks like Mark Burnley.

Tucker's opinion is irrelevant in this context. Tucker is always going to stay balanced, would be foolish to take sides, and/or make any personal comments, or go on a verbal battle with Jeroen. It'd be pointless.
They are colleagues, will be meeting in podcasts soon, but also later on in conferences, etc.
So Tucker has to show him due respect, regardless of what he really thinks of him.

Well, you did bring him up. If you were as familiar with Dr. Swart's twitter feed as you seem to imply, you would know how frequently Vayer and Swart have exchanged tweets over the past few days. You bring up Vayer in that context, so how can you claim that he is off limits when it doesn't suit your purposes.

 

[thehog]

Re:

OK a week on. So with all the squealing about the provenance of the "fax" that became two "faxes", presumably Swart and Moore rang the lab and got it confirmed that one of the copies was genuine. So that took about 6 hours to get the reply on Thursday or Friday. It is not like they would want to leave that alone for a few days as they have a stack of library books to take back and their sock drawers to tidy or some such vital other business. They are there in the spotlight the pair of them. This is a great moment proving their boy is clean with the good fortune that Michele found the long missing data that had caused Sky to hire the Dawg, before the greatest manager in cycling ever, forgot about it all again and wanted to palm him off on JV. So can anyone point me at the statement from the lab confirming that Froome really was 17% body fat in 2007?

Speaking of the faxes, has there been any confirmation on what they are? Why are they different? Why is the BMI off?

 

[gillan1969]

DJP...you seem to be missing the issue...

it's because of his integrity he is useful....the headlines have already been written...and they are nothing to do with the 2015 tests...the headlines are that Froome was always good but he lost weight...the twitter storm and some ill judged comments are the important part of Swart's work for SKY(Moore already being onside and knowing his job). Sir Dave has maintained radio silience...despite this being about his top rider

he of course knows he doesn't have to speak...his work is being done for him...step forward Swart (and his not so smart mate burnley). Nobody is attacking Swart's actual work (yet)...its his role....and that role he is not in control of.

It's because this is in the 'introduction to media manipulation and professional cycling' chapter 1 (with large inset - Lance Armstrong - case study) that he is being met with criticism...its all been seen and done before...despite Swart's lavish words about the robes...we all know Froome has nothing on.

Why?

Because he has nothing on.

Hmmmm... so you weren't attacking his work with the post below? I think you are the one missing the point, gillan1969. Attacking his character now is designed to minimize his findings before they even hit the presses IMO. It is done because some have already surmised what the conclusions MIGHT be. Plus you couldn't even manage to make an entire post without throwing in an ad hominem attack. Remember, Dr. Burnley schooled Vayer on Math just yesterday. What is your opinion on Vayer's intellect? (rhetorical question)

viewtopic.php?p=1846370#p1846370

eh..it was an invented conversation to illustrate a point...that point being his comments outside the lab...i have not commented on his work in the lab as I'm not qualified however by all accounts it seems to be fine....i would hope that his findings would stand the test of me having a go at them...they are what they are..and I ain't a physiologist and can wear a hat no problem ;-)

however the charge that he is being used in a larger scheme stands...

 

[Ventoux Boar]

Re: Re:

Speaking of the faxes, has there been any confirmation on what they are? Why are they different? Why is the BMI off?

There's simply not a 'clean' explanation for 21.9 to register as 21.

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

Speaking of the faxes, has there been any confirmation on what they are? Why are they different? Why is the BMI off?

There's simply not a 'clean' explanation for 21.9 to register as 21.

The mathematical and scientific explanation is the value is recorded incorrectly for the stated weight. Or perhaps the BMI is correct and the weight was adjusted from 73.6 to 75.6?

Not clean at all. 21.9 would be 22.

 

[romnom]

The discussion seems to me like a rerun of the usual stuff between (pseudo)scientists. Sports scientists going to great lengths to explain how little can be known based on the data at hand and how inaccurate it is. Now I understand that trying to get definite answers on specific cases is pretty foolish but I still can't help feeling the that there's an active effort to avoid even discussing the whole issue. Considering the known history of top level sports it seems weird to me that so many of the people interested enough in the subject to actually call it a science are so happy to go with the usual 'We just can't know' as an answer. Maybe I'm missing something obvious and they actually have a good way of dealing with the topic of doping. Reading things like a tweet from Swart saying that he tested Ullrich in 2006 and was 'naive and idealistic' enough to not know he was doping just makes me wonder how disconnected the science part of sport has been and maybe still is from what has been going on for decades in professional sport.

Oh well, maybe I just don't get the science thingy.

 

[Ventoux Boar]

Re: Re:

Speaking of the faxes, has there been any confirmation on what they are? Why are they different? Why is the BMI off?

There's simply not a 'clean' explanation for 21.9 to register as 21.

The mathematical and scientific explanation is the value is recorded incorrectly for the stated weight. Or perhaps the BMI is correct and the weight was adjusted from 73.6 to 75.6?

Not clean at all. 21.9 would be 22.

Or the BMI data field only holds 2 digits? Too simple, maybe.

 

[42x16ss]

swart's 2015 testing has hardly been criticized.
it's been labeled useless to the point of being pointless, at least in the context of establishing if froome dopes.
that's the only criticism it has received, and that's justified.
subsequently people on twitter have attempted to enter with him in a discussion about doping, and about the validity of the 2007 tests, and about the value of the 2015 tests in the context of Froome doping.
In that discussion, Swart has shown his colors, gone full Sky-Froome bot, not able to address any arguments, blocking and/or insulting froome-doubters, being highly dismissive of any inquiries/doubts, and team-tagging with Sky-fans like Moore and/or rather dumb folks like Mark Burnley.

Tucker's opinion is irrelevant in this context. Tucker is always going to stay balanced, would be foolish to take sides, and/or make any personal comments, or go on a verbal battle with Jeroen. It'd be pointless.
They are colleagues, will be meeting in podcasts soon, but also later on in conferences, etc.
So Tucker has to show him due respect, regardless of what he really thinks of him.

Well, you did bring him up. If you were as familiar with Dr. Swart's twitter feed as you seem to imply, you would know how frequently Vayer and Swart have exchanged tweets over the past few days. You bring up Vayer in that context, so how can you claim that he is off limits when it doesn't suit your purposes.

Because the discussion has moved on from Vayer. This is about the interaction between Swart and Tucker.

 

[DirtyWorks]

Re: Re:

Since we now know (discounting suggestion that 2007 lab results are fake) he always had the potential these factors seem more likely than a lazarus pill.

Did he? What about those amazing years at Barloworld showing his genetic gifts before his first grand tour podium?

What about the ones where he didn't walk onto a podium against regional competition like a grand tour podium contender would?

http://www.procyclingstats.com/rider/Christopher_Froome_Details

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

Speaking of the faxes, has there been any confirmation on what they are? Why are they different? Why is the BMI off?

There's simply not a 'clean' explanation for 21.9 to register as 21.

The mathematical and scientific explanation is the value is recorded incorrectly for the stated weight. Or perhaps the BMI is correct and the weight was adjusted from 73.6 to 75.6?

Not clean at all. 21.9 would be 22.

Or the BMI data field only holds 2 digits? Too simple, maybe.

Then it would be 22 not 21. Simple.

 

[Merckx index]

Here are some things Froome could do if he were really serious about being transparent:

1) Provide pre-2011 power data. The 2007 FAX and the 2015 tests agree on his FTP: about 420 watts. He must have plenty of power data from the intervening years. Why doesn’t he release these data? If his story is that he always had the big engine, why not furnish more evidence for that, when the evidence is clearly available?

Grappe was given access to power data from 2011-2013. AFAIK, he has never published the actual values, but simply said they were consistent with the V02max that the 2015 study actually measured. Why doesn’t Froome instruct Grappe to release these numbers, further supporting the 2015 tests?

If all these data are consistent, then the big engine story would be basically confirmed. No one could argue with it. While it’s always possible that engine was using banned fuel, if there were a consistent record of power over many years, and at different times during those years, that would do much to argue that the reported power values were achieved clean. And it would definitely show that Froome did not, beginning with the Vuelta, use any kind of performance enhancement that affected his absolute power that he had not used previously. This would be a very significant finding that it appears is within his capability of providing.

2) Provide more data on weight in the past. The 2007 FAX lists his weight as 75.6 kg. That appears to be inconsistent with his own statements to Kimmage that he weighed 70-71 kg beginning at Barloworld. First, what does Froome say in response to this point? Does he now argue that he was mistaken, or not? Why doesn’t someone ask him?

If he still insists he was at the lower weight at Barloworld, then we have strong evidence that he had a power/weight ratio at that time that should have translated into elite climbing ability. If, OTOH, he says he could have been mistaken, when did he get down to 70-71 kg? Again, there must be weight records in the past. Even if the teams he was riding for at the time did not record his weight, we know from his own statements that he visited doctors multiple times during this period, in order to follow and treat the symptoms of schistosomiasis. For example, according to his own statements, he visited doctors on the following dates: October 2010; June 2011; November 2011; March 2012; and several times in 2013, including November of that year, when he reported he was finally negative. These are just the known dates in which he was being treated for schisto, he also claims he was being treated for other maladies at certain times.

In every one of these visits, he must have been weighed. This is generally standard practice when visiting a doctor. Where are these records? Why doesn’t he furnish them? Several of the visits were during the racing season, and collectively, they would give a very good indication of his weight range throughout those years. The first two dates are prior to the Vuelta transformation, while the third is shortly after it, so they might provide insight into whether weight loss figured into that result. For post-2011, we have also Grappe’s study, which reports 68 kg. Grappe’s data could be used to confirm that weights recorded by doctors post-2011 were accurate.

3) Provide blood data. There are two sources of these data. First, the passport tests, which began when he was still at Barloworld. Second, again, his visits to doctors because of his schistosomiasis. Anyone being treated for this disease surely would have measurements of hemoglobin and hematocrit. Where are these records? Why doesn’t he furnish them?

If we add in passport tests, it seems that his blood parameters were probably measured at least four times, and maybe more, during 2013. Those records could also be compared with the doctor visit in June 2011, shortly before his transformation. While he could have been blood doping for major races during that period and still beaten the passport, the tests by the doctors, which of course would not be reported to UCI, would be potentially valuable for him if they provided numbers within the general baseline range.