The Froome Files, test data only thread

[Jacques de Molay]

Re: Re:

you're cheerleading for Sky here.

You can't paint me with that brush.

There was a clear question: provide (reliable, duh) data that explain froome's transformation.
They haven't, we know that much.

Yes. The most important question has always been, How the hell did Froome out-Cobo Cobo (remember that if not for time bonuses, Froome would've won that Vuelta)? And no, that question has not been adequately answer yet. On this we agree.

But other questions were asked, and that's why the tests were done. It's that simple.

As far as Swart's position on the matter. I can only refer to his own words.
http://cyclingtips.com.au/2015/12/t...-results-his-conclusions-and-what-comes-next/

Jeroen Swart: Basically the start of this whole story was during the Tour, with all the fan abuse and all the questioning. The directive from all these sceptics was that he should undergo testing.

------

JS: we don’t know with absolute certainty whether Chris’ data is entirely 100 percent credible. There is no way to prove whether or not he has used any performance-enhancing substance. It is just not possible.

CT: I guess if a rider is taking substances, that would also boost a VO2 max test?

JS: Yes, it will. So you can have a very good lab performance by taking performance enhancing substances, particularly in the case of VO2 max, blood boosters – EPO, blood doping, whatever it happens to be.

CT: So the test is only a fraction of a whole bank of data that can give a picture of a rider’s cleanliness.

JS: Correct.

According to Swart, the most likely timeframe for the publication of the journal article is like next March. Those involved in writing it up are working away at it, but it still has to be accepted by a journal, tweaks may have to be made and then it must be peer reviewed.

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

you're cheerleading for Sky here.

You can't paint me with that brush.

apologies, changed it.

Jeroen must have been happy to get a second chance to look slightly less of a gullible fool in that Shane Stokes interview. Admittedly, that was a good interview, and Swart sounded balanced there.

 

[The Hitch]

Re:

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.

maltiv in that post is asking for Froome's numbers at Sky. Because Brailsford made up a story about how every time Froome is tested (which he made out to be a lot) Froome was pushing out incredible numbers.
So incredible that Sky coaches would always go up to Brailsford and say "OMG you won't believe the numbers Froome just pushed out in the lab" and Brailsford would reply calmly "that's Froomey". (this additional dialogue is what betrays the story as classic Brailsford fiction (see sandshoes)).

So maltiv is asking for these numbers. Note the date he is asking for is january 2011. Not 2007.

 

[The Hitch]

Re: 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.

Not sure I understand what you are saying.

Who speaks for the doubters? Kimmage? they ignore him. Vayer- same. Ross - well you see how much they respect ross with the little attack they had on him last week.

Sky's approach the whole time has been essentially don't negotiate with terrorists (though they haven't explicitly said that doubters are terrorists like Paula Radcliffe did, they devote a lot of propaganda towards demonizing doubters as people who are trying to assault sky riders and spike them with drugs and hacking into their computers etc).

They have NEVER, responded to questions from the doubters. Or from non doubters even. Look at the interview were some random journalist innocently asks db if he Froome will release a Vo2 max test and DB almost tears his head of.

That was 2013. A journalist with a cycling journalism licence doing an consenting interview with Sky asks if Sky will release a Vo2 max test.
And they do nothing.

So if they ignored this journalist making a simple request, are we to believe that now they have decided to answer all the questions from people they despise?

Come on.

Some people did ask for Sky to release numbers. But these people have been doing this for years and Sky only respond now, so the whole - Sky are responding to people who wanted to know the numbers, logic goes out of the window.

What quite clearly has happened, as Sky's behaviour over the last 3 tours has shown, is sky are upset at the massive underbelly of scepticism that meets any Froome performance.
And their response are pr stunts. In order to get the buzz words "Froome transparent" into the media, and hope it sticks.
Exactly what they did in 2013 with the Grappe Scam. Exactly what they did in 2015 with the delayed power files. Exactly what they are doing now.

This latest trick, is no response to anyone. Its merely the result of DB or Cound or someone at Sky saying "maybe if we do this we can get some positive press".

If they were responding to people, they would have done it years ago.

 

[Jacques de Molay]

I will say this about the testing.

Regardless of what one may think of the quality, depth or reliability of the 2015 testing, I still think it's important to have the results on record. And this goes for the 2007 results as well. Even if one chooses to question the validity of either 2007 or 2015, one thing stands out as being important to me:

These are the results that the Froome camp are standing behind. They can't backtrack now and say that they don't remember what the numbers were, or that they lost the records, or whatever. If nothing else, it provides a measuring gauge against future results, both in the lab and on the road.

Let's suppose that in 2016, Froome puts up some numbers in a race that make no sense compared with what they've just released. It could be a useful benchmark. The more data they release, the deeper they're banging their stakes in the ground. It's like any good Brailsford quote. The more he talks, the better. I love hearing and reading his remarks. They often provide answers (unintentionally) well outside of what the original question even was. That's the sort of thing that this data may provide as well.

 

[Jacques de Molay]

Re: Re:

This latest trick, is no response to anyone. Its merely the result of DB or Cound or someone at Sky saying "maybe if we do this we can get some positive press".

...to counteract the negative press, and the inconvenient questions being thrown their way. It's that negative press that they are responding to. That's the "response." No?

I agree that Sky are quite comfortable with dismissing or ignoring the individual critic. But the testing, and so forth, I see as being more of a response to the growing tide of skepticism, and the inertia that's been building over time from the collective, rather than one specific person or group.

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

This latest trick, is no response to anyone. Its merely the result of DB or Cound or someone at Sky saying "maybe if we do this we can get some positive press".

...to counteract the negative press, and the inconvenient questions being thrown their way. It's that negative press that they are responding to. That's the "response." No?

I agree that Sky are quite comfortable with dismissing or ignoring the individual critic. But the testing, and so forth, I see as being more of a response to the growing tide of skepticism, and the inertia that's been building over time from the collective, rather than one specific person or group.

"Negative Press"? Got any links?

There has been 1 or 2 real journalists questioning Froome's performances.

But Sky have sidelined them a long time ago. This 'weight loss' catch phrase a long with 'Froome transparency' and 'independent testing' are designed to for fans to repeat ad nauseum on social media and foruae.

If Sky and Froome were 'honest' there are plenty of people that would give them the 'independent' questioning and crtique that such performances deserve. Not Richard 'omerta' Moore! Nor fan with a typewriter Walsh!

 

[thehog]

Re:

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

The 2007 tests/results do not come up in Froome's book nor his weight for that period. He does mention all the training and racing he did along with attending the WCC.

What's interesting about it all is that Froome's numbers were very impressive and was obvious to all from those numbers alone he was fat and overweight for a pro cyclist. Seeing as Froome then lost this weight in 2008, 09, 2010 and then a jump in 2011 and 2012 its hard to understand why he has never mentioned this prior, not even in the Kimmage interview.

I guess Bilharzia was the running explanation for the poor form but you'd think with power he displayed in 2007 along with the excess weight he could draw on this data in part to explain the rags to riches story?

"At last I am free of the debilitating disease bilharzia," said the Kenya-born Froome, who this year became the second Briton to win the Tour de France after Bradley Wiggins in 2012.

"I had a test when I went back to Kenya recently and it is the first time it has come back negative since the diagnosis (in 2009). That is fantastic news for me. I'm not going to have to worry about that any more. That should be it gone now.

"I have been going back every six months for the past two years and returning positive results.

"When I was first diagnosed they said it had been in my system for at least two years, but it could have been there even longer, five or six years possibly."

https://uk.sports.yahoo.com/news/cycling-tour-champion-froome-says-clear-parasitic-disease-014448134--spt.html

 

[djpbaltimore]

Re: Re:

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.

maltiv in that post is asking for Froome's numbers at Sky. Because Brailsford made up a story about how every time Froome is tested (which he made out to be a lot) Froome was pushing out incredible numbers.
So incredible that Sky coaches would always go up to Brailsford and say "OMG you won't believe the numbers Froome just pushed out in the lab" and Brailsford would reply calmly "that's Froomey". (this additional dialogue is what betrays the story as classic Brailsford fiction (see sandshoes)).

So maltiv is asking for these numbers. Note the date he is asking for is january 2011. Not 2007.

The question was whether people had asked about VO2 max numbers. The supplied quote fits those parameters. I honestly don't see what you are quibbling about.

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

Not sure I understand what you are saying.

Who speaks for the doubters? Kimmage? they ignore him. Vayer- same. Ross - well you see how much they respect ross with the little attack they had on him last week.

Sky's approach the whole time has been essentially don't negotiate with terrorists (though they haven't explicitly said that doubters are terrorists like Paula Radcliffe did, they devote a lot of propaganda towards demonizing doubters as people who are trying to assault sky riders and spike them with drugs and hacking into their computers etc).

They have NEVER, responded to questions from the doubters. Or from non doubters even. Look at the interview were some random journalist innocently asks db if he Froome will release a Vo2 max test and DB almost tears his head of.

That was 2013. A journalist with a cycling journalism licence doing an consenting interview with Sky asks if Sky will release a Vo2 max test.
And they do nothing.

So if they ignored this journalist making a simple request, are we to believe that now they have decided to answer all the questions from people they despise?

Come on.

Some people did ask for Sky to release numbers. But these people have been doing this for years and Sky only respond now, so the whole - Sky are responding to people who wanted to know the numbers, logic goes out of the window.

What quite clearly has happened, as Sky's behaviour over the last 3 tours has shown, is sky are upset at the massive underbelly of scepticism that meets any Froome performance.
And their response are pr stunts. In order to get the buzz words "Froome transparent" into the media, and hope it sticks.
Exactly what they did in 2013 with the Grappe Scam. Exactly what they did in 2015 with the delayed power files. Exactly what they are doing now.

This latest trick, is no response to anyone. Its merely the result of DB or Cound or someone at Sky saying "maybe if we do this we can get some positive press".

If they were responding to people, they would have done it years ago.

It certainly appears the "weight loss" is not trumping over the Bilharzia story. Probably because that one was full of many holes.

"I probably had it for year before I found it." (Sep '11)

"I found it 18 months ago and they had probably been in my system for a year before that." (May '12)

Dec 2010 - Diagnosis (and presumably Treatment)

"Bilharzia – it’s a water-borne disease, which I found that I had it in December last year." (Sep '11)

March/April 2012 - Treatment

"I took the treatment three weeks ago and I've got to wait six months to see if it's still active or not." (May '12)

“The bilharzia is not totally cleared up. I did repeat the treatment about three months ago in March. I am clear for now. I need to go check again in August-September." (Jul '12)

“I had a two week treatment in April last year, and have since been clear of the parasite. I have it checked every six months to make sure it hasn't returned.” (Dec '12)

January 2013 - Check-Up (and inferred Treatment)

”I do go for a check-up every six months. The last was in January and it was still in my system. I take Biltricide. It kills the parasite in the system.” (Jul '13)

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

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

The 2007 tests/results do not come up in Froome's book nor his weight for that period. He does mention all the training and racing he did along with attending the WCC.

What's interesting about it all is that Froome's numbers were very impressive and was obvious to all from those numbers alone he was fat and overweight for a pro cyclist. Seeing as Froome then lost this weight in 2008, 09, 2010 and then a jump in 2011 and 2012 its hard to understand why he has never mentioned this prior, not even in the Kimmage interview.

I guess Bilharzia was the running explanation for the poor form but you'd think with power he displayed in 2007 along with the excess weight he could draw on this data in part to explain the rags to riches story?

"At last I am free of the debilitating disease bilharzia," said the Kenya-born Froome, who this year became the second Briton to win the Tour de France after Bradley Wiggins in 2012.

"I had a test when I went back to Kenya recently and it is the first time it has come back negative since the diagnosis (in 2009). That is fantastic news for me. I'm not going to have to worry about that any more. That should be it gone now.

"I have been going back every six months for the past two years and returning positive results.

"When I was first diagnosed they said it had been in my system for at least two years, but it could have been there even longer, five or six years possibly."

https://uk.sports.yahoo.com/news/cycling-tour-champion-froome-says-clear-parasitic-disease-014448134--spt.html

there are a lot of inconsistencies wrt his weight.
in Vavafroome it says that Froome always (even in his SA years) paid careful attention to nutrition. As you say, all the training and racing he did whilst at the UCI centre, it's also mentioned in vavafroome.
So you gotta wonder how he became chubby friggin checker?

Another thing in Vavafroome is he's claimed to weigh 73kg in the 2011 preseason, shedding five kilos in the run up the vuelta, under Julich's tutelage.
that's not what one would call 'gradual weight loss'. It also doesnt match his reported race weight at barloworld.

None of that is prove of doping (well, maybe shedding five kilos in less than five months without losing power is), but the inconsistencies dont create trust.

 

[Irondan]

Please do not turn this thread into a 'Bilharzia story', there are other threads for that.

Again, any off topic comments will be deleted.

 

[red_flanders]

Re: Re:

there are a lot of inconsistencies wrt his weight.
in Vavafroome it says that Froome always (even in his SA years) paid careful attention to nutrition. As you say, all the training and racing he did whilst at the UCI centre, it's also mentioned in vavafroome.
So you gotta wonder how he became chubby friggin checker?

Another thing in Vavafroome is he's claimed to weigh 73kg in the 2011 preseason, shedding five kilos in the run up the vuelta, under Julich's tutelage.
that's not what one would call 'gradual weight loss'. It also doesnt match his reported race weight at barloworld.

None of that is prove of doping (well, maybe shedding five kilos in less than five months without losing power is), but the inconsistencies dont create trust.

I think that's soft-pedaling the facts a bit. I would say, "The inconsistent, conflicting and rather unbelievable reports of his weight are totally inconsistent with the rest of his story, and are completely consistent with a narrative of trying to cover up doping".

No, not proof. But more than enough to confirm in the mind of any rational individual what his unbelievable transformation and unbelievable performances already indicate. He doped.

Not that big a shocker, really.

 

[djpbaltimore]

I had many issues with Sniper's earlier posts. But I will give full credit where credit is due. Both of you make points that I feel are spot on regarding his weight. And that in turn influences how one might view the data sets themselves.

 

[thehog]

Re:

I had many issues with Sniper's earlier posts. But I will give full credit where credit is due. Both of you make points that I feel are spot on regarding his weight. And that in turn influences how one might view the data sets themselves.

Apprently Dawg was doing 7 hour rides back in 2007 leading up to his tests. They couldn't stop him, even on the windy days.

Alas he was still carrying around 17% body fat and 75.6kg in weight.

 

[djpbaltimore]

Coincidentally, my BMI is just a touch under 21. Getting up to 22 by adding ~4kg wouldn't be too noticeable in photos, except for the midsection. Everybody is telling me to eat more. It makes me want to get a fat percentage test to research this further. Personally, I would tend to believe the lab scales from the testing center more than I would believe stories about his maniacal training regimen that apparently no one was watching him do. As always, YMMV.

 

[thehog]

Re:

Coincidentally, my BMI is just a touch under 21. Getting up to 22 by adding ~4kg wouldn't be too noticeable in photos, except for the midsection. Everybody is telling me to eat more. It makes me want to get a fat percentage test to research this further. Personally, I would tend to believe the lab scales from the testing center more than I would believe stories about his maniacal training regimen that apparently no one was watching him do. As always, YMMV.

Apart from Robertson, Theze and all the staff at the WCC, no one was watching him

Not sure I get your point. 75.6kg is a stretch considering the documented photographs at the time (compared to latter day photographs), his racing/training schedule, access to coaches and professional staff.

If you want to believe the "fax" rather than the scales as we don't actually know how he was measured for his weight in those alleged tests (that are not mentioned in any of his books).

 

[djpbaltimore]

Not sure I see your point. The page talked about 7 hr solo rides.

Based on personal experience, I don't think it is that big of a stretch. I have been consistent that judging weight/ fat % from pictures is problematic. I have posted this opinion before. As I stated earlier today, if the 2007 data has lab notebooks, the weight there is most likely what I would consider to be correct.

 

[doperhopper]

Re: Re:

I had many issues with Sniper's earlier posts. But I will give full credit where credit is due. Both of you make points that I feel are spot on regarding his weight. And that in turn influences how one might view the data sets themselves.

Apprently Dawg was doing 7 hour rides back in 2007 leading up to his tests. They couldn't stop him, even on the windy days.

Alas he was still carrying around 17% body fat and 75.6kg in weight.

well, believe it or not, weight helps in the wind, that's why he's put on few kilos, new marginal gain

 

[thehog]

Re:

Not sure I see your point. The page talked about 7 hr solo rides.

Based on personal experience, I don't think it is that big of a stretch. I have been consistent that judging weight/ fat % from pictures is problematic. I have posted this opinion before. As I stated earlier today, if the 2007 data has lab notebooks, the weight there is most likely what I would consider to be correct.

Depends on many factors; the types of scales used, the number of times the weight was taken and at what time of the day - pre-breakfast, lunch, evening. The 2015 test required him to fast prior, that may not be the case here. Did he ride prior to the test? or not.

Therefore we really can't but a lot of weight pardon the pun on the 2007 results as there is so much we don't know on how it was conducted.

All of this is straightforward, surprised you hadn't factored it in. YMMV, I believe the term used.

 

[djpbaltimore]

Oh, I took all of those into account, but they are minor variances and aren't going to change one's weight appreciably. Even after running 12-15 miles, my weight will only be down by about 5 lbs. It is true that we don't know a lot about the methodology of the 2007 data. I'm guessing they have something more accurate than bathroom scales, but the paper (if published) should enlighten us on the details.

EDIT. All measurements have uncertainty associated with them. Science 101. It really should be reported x +/- y kgs.

 

[thehog]

Re:

Oh, I took all of those into account, but they are minor variances and aren't going to change one's weight appreciably. Even after running 12-15 miles, my weight will only be down by about 5 lbs. It is true that we don't know a lot about the methodology of the 2007 data. I'm guessing they have something more accurate than bathroom scales, but the paper (if published) should enlighten us on the details.

EDIT. All measurements have uncertainty associated with them. Science 101. It really should be reported x +/- y kgs.

Considering the BMI is (way) off and the fax/faxes appear to be different and have been adjustment I'm not sure how much credence we can give to the weight at this stage. The fat measurement I believe came from calipers thus it could be way off so it wouldn't surprise me if the bathroom types scales were used.

I've seen my weight drop 3kg after a ride and then I can add 2.5-3kg after a big meal, the variance is there, hence why Swart asked for the fast.

Not sure your anecdotal test of one person would suffice here.

 

[djpbaltimore]

Weight is a measurement. BMI is a calculation. That is a fundamental and substantial difference. Are you giving estimates from pictures taken from around that time more credence than a measurement taken the day of the test itself? Do you have a source for the caliper measurements?

So you use an anecdotal example to rebut an anecdotal example? It should be noted that I am very close to Froome's proportions, albeit an inch shorter. Unless Froome went on a long training ride prior to the test, your example doesn't seem very relevant. I doubt he would hit the buffet immediately beforehand either, but both are possible. If anything, his measured weight is likely to be an underestimation.

 

[thehog]

Yes, I used anecdotal to show how fraught it is when discussing scientific output.

As you have the exact same proportions to Froome, perhaps you could do a skin-fold test for for the Clinic? It would be good to compare a pro-cyclist to yourself and determine if 17% is realistic for a full time pro in 2007.

Let us know.

 

[42x16ss]

Re:

Weight is a measurement. BMI is a calculation. That is a fundamental and substantial difference. Are you giving estimates from pictures taken from around that time more credence than a measurement taken the day of the test itself? Do you have a source for the caliper measurements?

So you use an anecdotal example to rebut an anecdotal example? It should be noted that I am very close to Froome's proportions, albeit an inch shorter. Unless Froome went on a long training ride prior to the test, your example doesn't seem very relevant. I doubt he would hit the buffet immediately beforehand either, but both are possible. If anything, his measured weight is likely to be an underestimation.

How so? Did JV teach the lab techs how to zero the scales or something?