The Froome Files, test data only thread

[thehog]

He did keep all of his training data. He could produce that but hard to verify if real.

The bio passport would be interesting along with any blood data for bilharzia but doubtful he'll release it.

 

[thehog]

http://www.stickybottle.com/coaching/coaching-most-gaa-players-i-analyse-have-less-fat-than-froome-in-2007/

2007 Froome’s body fat percentage was reported as 16.9 per cent, which is exceptionally high for a professional cyclist.

I would have body fat measurements from a number of GAA teams using the gold standard DEXA method and would rarely see figures over 15 per cent in the competition phase of the season.

Froome’s 2007 measurements were also taken in July right in the middle of racing season, which is further surprising.

Former Irish international turned exercise physiologist Stephen Barrett makes sense of Froome’s physiological data. The Corkman said the data revealed a lot – but also left some questions unanswered.

 

[sniper]

great post @Merckx index, very comprehensive.
According to camp Froome, haters will hate. Truth is nobody ever asked for the 2015 tests or the 2007 data. Although they're welcome, the call was always specifically for data surrounding his 2011 transformation, i.e. to complement the Grappe study with pre-vuelta data. Incredible how we're being taken by the nose.

Very nice links, @thehog, placing further questionmarks behind Froome's (lack of) transparency and the veracity of the 2007 data.

The integrity of these people is so low, the question if Froome dopes is becoming quite the nobrainer.
I wonder if Walsh and Brailsford have any regrets giving their support to Froome. He seemed such a modest, lovable chap.
Under Cound's tutelage he's become quite the Frankenstein.
Froome should've done a Wiggins.

 

[sniper]

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.

splendid post.
with the exception of Ross Tucker and maybe one or two others, you just nailed it: sport's science seems totally disconnected with the reality of professional sport. You can read entire books and lengthy peer-reviewed articles about nutrition, dehydration and complex training schemes, without the d-word being ever mentioned.
It's also why a 'pseudo-scientist' like Vayer still has tons more credibility than guys like Swart/Burnley.

 

[Ventoux Boar]

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

Whataboutery. Anything to deflect from the 2007 lab results.

 

[sniper]

i thought you agreed we have to wait for the peerreview, yet here you are clinging onto unreviewed data which contain at least one potentially grave error.

it's becoming increasingly easy to filter out the trolling in here.
the jabs at Vayer to distract from Swart and Moore's blunders. The *insert monkey is not listening image* attitude regarding the 2007 data. No reflection on why Froome isnt providing any of his Barloworld/Sky power/weight data.

 

[sniper]

Re:

the haters will hate theme.
again.

 

[sniper]

agree vayer's importance in this particular debate is negligible.
it's all the more telling therefore to see Swart&Burnley and the skyfans in the clinic treat him like a threat, insulting and discrediting him left right and centre, rather than normally engaging with him the way a guy like Tucker (someone without vested interests) is capable of doing.

anyway, back to the 2007-2015 tests.

Anyone know Michel Theze? He was Froome's principal coach in 2007 at Aigle. Here's two interviews with him in French, one from 2012, one from 2015: in both instances he defends Froome, basically says he always had an engine and that he showed his talents already in 2007, but makes no single mention of any test data.
Also a nice photo there of Theze flanked by a 75.6kg, 17% fat Froome in 2007.
2012: http://www.lavoixdunord.fr/sports/michel-theze-froome-ne-vient-pas-de-nulle-part-jna0b0n575753
2015: http://www.letelegramme.fr/cyclisme/theze-froome-n-est-pas-un-voleur-27-07-2015-10720128.php

 

[acoggan]

Re:

The very concept of peerreviewing implies that you don't know beforehand if your article gets accepted.
It's funny they already know it will be published in a peerreviewed journal.

They do seem oddly confident, and with a rather tight timeline as such things go.

 

[Jacques de Molay]

Re:

Truth is nobody ever asked for the 2015 tests or the 2007 data.

You can't be serious with this.

People have been clamoring for evidence of those rumored 2007 tests for years. Is what they've now released legitimate? I've no idea. But people have certainly been asking for it for quite some time.

Same could be said for 2015 tests. The rallying cry, for several months, has been, Why won't Froome go into a lab and be tested for VO2 Max (among other parameters)?

Are you disputing this?

Re: 2007 test result
I still think there's a very legitimate series of questions that need to be answered as to just how Cound tracked these test results down, and why she seemed to be the only one to do so. I'd like to know about the chain of events there.

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

Truth is nobody ever asked for the 2015 tests or the 2007 data.

You can't be serious with this.

People have been clamoring for evidence of those rumored 2007 tests for years. Is what they've now released legitimate? I've no idea. But people have certainly been asking for it for quite some time.

Same could be said for 2015 tests. The rallying cry, for several months, has been, Why won't Froome go into a lab and be tested for VO2 Max (among other parameters)?

Are you disputing this?

Re: 2007 test result
I still think there's a very legitimate series of questions that need to be answered as to just how Cound tracked these test results down, and why she seemed to be the only one to do so. I'd like to know about the chain of events there.

not sure, but fair points, I guess. (even fairer if you could provide links to people asking for it)

Speaking for myself, the only question on my mind was why did they give post-vuelta data to Grappe and not include a batch of prevuelta data.
I think generally that has been the most urgent question. Not for him to go into a lab now.
As for the 2007 data, agreed, it would have been interesting to see those.

 

[djpbaltimore]

Re: Re:

Truth is nobody ever asked for the 2015 tests or the 2007 data.

You can't be serious with this.

People have been clamoring for evidence of those rumored 2007 tests for years. Is what they've now released legitimate? I've no idea. But people have certainly been asking for it for quite some time.

Same could be said for 2015 tests. The rallying cry, for several months, has been, Why won't Froome go into a lab and be tested for VO2 Max (among other parameters)?

Are you disputing this?

Re: 2007 test result
I still think there's a very legitimate series of questions that need to be answered as to just how Cound tracked these test results down, and why she seemed to be the only one to do so. I'd like to know about the chain of events there.

Great points.

People are harping about the fax, but people should also remember that that is a reprint of the source data, not the source data itself. When something like this error arises, the answer lies in going back to the original notebooks. If they cannot be validated and scrutinized, the 2007 data is not usable IMO. But it doesn't sound like that is the case.

It looks like I have been called Martin....again. And nobody reported this clear violation of the rules? Not to mention the veiled accusation of trolling. Let's keep this discussion civil. Post, not poster.... If anybody doubts my identity, feel free to contact me by PM and I will provide information. It seems the only way to clear my name.

 

[Irondan]

Please post to the topic at hand.

Any off topic comments will be deleted.

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

Truth is nobody ever asked for the 2015 tests or the 2007 data.

You can't be serious with this.

People have been clamoring for evidence of those rumored 2007 tests for years. Is what they've now released legitimate? I've no idea. But people have certainly been asking for it for quite some time.

Same could be said for 2015 tests. The rallying cry, for several months, has been, Why won't Froome go into a lab and be tested for VO2 Max (among other parameters)?

Are you disputing this?

Re: 2007 test result
I still think there's a very legitimate series of questions that need to be answered as to just how Cound tracked these test results down, and why she seemed to be the only one to do so. I'd like to know about the chain of events there.

any links for the parts in bold? genuinely interested.

 

[Jacques de Molay]

Re: Re:

not sure, but fair points, I guess. (even fairer if you could provide links to people asking for it)

C'mon now. There are endless examples of these things scattered all over this and other forums. Not to mention Twitter. This is too easy (or it should have been. The problem is that this forum software is screwy, and many times older links provide 404 Error messages, or the quotes themselves don't have active links.)

But searching on Froome + Aigle provides more than a few.

just was given some from his barloworld time. rather crude, old fashioned vo2 tests, but still. i never conducted any myself. i've heard of some big numbers when he was at the cycling center in agile, but i never saw those.

The mysterious "numbers" that's no one has seen.

Sounds like Lance's extra big heart.

JV you really do try and sell ice to the Eskimos.

Give it a rest.

The mysterious "numbers" that's no one has seen.

Sounds like Lance's extra big heart.

JV you really do try and sell ice to the Eskimos.

Give it a rest.

btw - why would anyone on this forum have access to chris froome's vo2 max testing from his barloworld time? it's not mysterious. you guys just aren't involved in professional cycling, so you don't have access. hardly odd.

Every guy you've ever seen in the top 5 at the Tour has an extra big heart. left ventricle size is highly correlated to being successful in endurance sports....although not always.

I'm not selling anything. Seriously, I don't care if you disagree. It's totally your choice.

It's alright JV. I'm good.

Froomedawg and Sky are killing your team.

You're lookin' like FDJ these days.

Don't you think that matters? I wouldn't want my team been shown up by a guy who could barely climb a mountain 2 years ago and was giving up his bike to sprinters.

You should call it out. It's not right. Or at least have a word to the other teams and get this guy tested.

If Froome has a Vo2max of 94 then he would've shown a lot more at an earlier stage even at Sky, who were ready to sling him out the door.

I'm more interested in raw treshold power(what he supposedly tested in Aigle) but it's pretty hard to get access.

JV knows Froome's numbers. They're not for us to see, but for JV it's a proof CF has the requierd talent to reach 6W/kg on a MTF in a clean fashion.

Giving out data wouldn't feed the internet scientists anymore than the 3 blogs working out climbing data.

Brailsford is scared that someone like a Dr Ashenden would be asked to analyse the data by a big media company and then the questions put to them about the data would be legitimate and they would have to prove how they achieved the data without doping and that is impossible for the likes of Froome, Wiggins and Porte.

In a galaxy far far away there's the results of a test. Switzerland. Aigle. The dawg's numbers under lock and key.

JV said so. Apparently the numbers unlock the secret of the Dawg.

The legend of Dawg.

and maybe they'll find Froome secret Aigle test?!!!

As for Froome's late blossoming, TeamSky point to his early tests at the UCI headquarters in Aigle, which showed he was always a 'freakish talent'....

Yet this test data is not released! Why? well we all know why? It would point to Froome not being the 'freakishly talented' rider Sky claim, that is why they were trying to get rid off him in 2011......

 

[djpbaltimore]

Or dating back to the transformation...

viewtopic.php?p=673402#p673402

Well, as Brailsford says that Froome has always been able to produce numbers like this in training, I just wish Sky could somehow publish those numbers. Wouldn't have been nearly as suspicious if they could prove that he already measured a VO2 max of 90 or whatever and climbed @ 6,0 w/kg in january.

 

[sniper]

Are you saying Swart and the GSK guys were testing Froome in response to Clinic posters?
And if Vaughters spreads rumors of a 2007 data, of course we want to see those.
But still that wasn't the call.
The main call was for any data predating the transformation to complement Grappe's analysis. We haven't seen any yet.

 

[Jacques de Molay]

Twitter is littered with them. I'll only post one though.

https://twitter.com/Digger_forum/status/534385285749280768?lang=en

‏@Digger_forum
Seventeen months since Brailsford told us they'd do a vo2 max test for froome, next time he was in a lab. Evidently, no lab visit

This also being one of the most repeated links regarding the topic.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BtIhzY16iy0&t=3m0s

 

[Jacques de Molay]

Re:

Are you saying Swart and the GSK guys were testing Froome in response to Clinic posters?

Swart and the GSK guys were testing Froome because Chris and Michelle asked them to.
Chris and Michelle asked them to because there were a lot doubts being cast about Froome's performance.
Those doubts were appearing in many places, including Twitter, print media, French TV...and The Clinic.

I've no idea as to which sources influenced the Froomes decision the most.

You said, "Truth is nobody ever asked for the 2015 tests or the 2007 data."

I'm saying, people were asking. Some of those people do post in The Clinic.

And since we are here, in The Clinic, it seemed reasonable to assume that you were referring to this place.

Either way though, obviously the testing was done in response to someone asking. It was done in response to those people, whoever one chooses to believe those people are/were. If nobody ever asked, the tests likely never would've been done, and the 2007 data never would've been revealed.

I'm not sure how else I can expand upon this.

 

[sniper]

This also being one of the most repeated links regarding the topic.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BtIhzY16iy0&t=3m0s

cheers! I stand partially corrected.

That last link is valuable: it's in response to Grappe's analysis, the reporter asks brailsford why we aren't seeing Froome's vo2 max from after and before 2011 Vuelta. Brailsford's reaction speaks volumes. (on a side: look at how Dave tries to intimidate the reporter before he even asks a question, by zooming in on his nametag)
In my memory that was the call, right there in response to Grappe's analysis. "Let us see some pre-Vuelta power/blood data". And that was not exactly a reference to the mythical 2007 data, you know that.
Sky certainly haven't shown us any prevuelta data yet, although they're likely sitting on many.

Anyway, thanks for digging up the links, appreciate it.

 

[djpbaltimore]

I think a lot of the request for data was rhetoric, with the people thinking that SKY and Froome would never actually release anything. So it was a 'safe' way to attack their phony transparency. (Note, I think SKY and Froome have been anything but transparent) With data being released, goal posts are moved. This is not a phenomenon unique to this particular data set.

 

[sniper]

Re:

no goal posts have been moved.
the 2015 tests have been praised.
the 2007 data rightly questioned.
still nothing from Sky pre-vuelta.

 

[acoggan]

Re: Re:

Swart and the GSK guys were testing Froome because Chris and Michelle asked them to.
Chris and Michelle asked them to because there were a lot doubts being cast about Froome's performance.
Those doubts were appearing in many places, including Twitter, print media, French TV...and The Clinic.

I've no idea as to which voices sources influenced the Froomes decision the most.

The proximal cause seems to have been the questions asked during the press conference at this year's TdF.

 

[djpbaltimore]

Praised by whom? You earlier said the 2015 data has been labeled 'useless' and 'pointless' with justification. The lead author of the 2015 study has been accused of being on the payroll of SKY, committing scientific fraud, being a patsy/rube, and been openly called out for being dumb/ unintelligent. Attacking the messenger to try to negate the message IMO.

You can't have it both ways. If you are going to try to discredit the integrity of the scientist, at least admit that you are actively doing so.

viewtopic.php?p=1846730#p1846730

EDIT. There you go again below. Now Dr. Swart is 'compromised'.

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

Either way though, obviously the testing was done in response to someone asking. It was done in response to those people, whoever one chooses to believe those people are/were. If nobody ever asked, the tests likely never would've been done, and the 2007 data never would've been revealed.

I completely disagree here.
They come up with an answer, then reformulate the question.
The question was never: do a testing session with compromised guys, let an even more compromised guy write an article about it, then let a rookie, wannabe big shot sports scientist make claims about how possibly faked 2007 data relate to the possibly biased 2015 measurements.
There was a clear question: provide (reliable, duh) data that explain froome's transformation.
They haven't, we know that much.