The Froome Files, test data only thread

[blackcat]

as Bon Scott said...only the names have been changed...to protect the guilty

and Fargo

 

[djpbaltimore]

Re: Re:

Havent heard podcast yet.
is it fair to say Swart was defending Froome?
If so, you wonder why.
If he's independent and unbiased he should really stick to defending only the accuracy/validity of his 2015 tests.

So you've not listened to it, you ask a question, assume the answer and then cast a load of aspersions about someone?

Incorrect. Are you ESL? Coz that is not what his post did at all.

That's exactly what it does, adding If to the start of a sentence doesn't disguise that.

What's ESL?

English as a second language. DearWiggo is having a go at someone who has a dissenting opinion. SSDD. You were spot on though, people should actually listen to the podcast before jumping to conclusions designed to cast aspersions on someone's credibility. I will listen to both pods together when the second is released, otherwise I will not comment on the relative independence/ bias of those on the podcast.

DearWiggo is guilty of a similar error by rubbishing claims about body fat storage despite possessing what appears to be only a rudimentary understanding of the topic being discussed. I echo acoggan's analysis that the claim by Swart is 'plausible'. It seems to fit the data, but the evidence is too limited to make much more of an endorsement.

And it is also true that Froome could do all of Ross' conditions and tests and he still would not prove that he is clean. He could perhaps make Ross believe that he is clean, but that is a totally different standard. Current antidoping efforts break people into two groups. People that are caught doping and people that have not been caught doping. Athletes in the latter group may be clean, but that is a leap of faith to automatically assume that to be the case even if they exhibit transparency in some respects.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Re: Re:

Havent heard podcast yet.
is it fair to say Swart was defending Froome?
If so, you wonder why.
If he's independent and unbiased he should really stick to defending only the accuracy/validity of his 2015 tests.

So you've not listened to it, you ask a question, assume the answer and then cast a load of aspersions about someone?

Incorrect. Are you ESL? Coz that is not what his post did at all.

That's exactly what it does, adding If to the start of a sentence doesn't disguise that.

What's ESL?

English as a second language. DearWiggo is having a go at someone who has a dissenting opinion. SSDD. You were spot on though, people should actually listen to the podcast before jumping to conclusions designed to cast aspersions on someone's credibility. I will listen to both pods together when the second is released, otherwise I will not comment on the relative independence/ bias of those on the podcast.

I am having a go at someone who clearly has a bias against sniper, and is interpreting his post in the most negative way possible.

You might think you know me and my motivation but I'd bet money you're wrong.

DearWiggo is guilty of a similar error by rubbishing claims about body fat storage despite possessing what appears to be only a rudimentary understanding of the topic being discussed. I echo acoggan's analysis that the claim by Swart is 'plausible'. It seems to fit the data, but the evidence is too limited to make much more of an endorsement.

Which would be a useful point except I admitted as much, so your point scoring, whilst commendable, is preempted by admission of ignorance.

In your desperate attempt for relevance or putting me down, you fail to acknowledge coggan allowed 10% fat but ignored the value that was claimed, 17%.

And it is also true that Froome could do all of Ross' conditions and tests and he still would not prove that he is clean. He could perhaps make Ross believe that he is clean, but that is a totally different standard. Current antidoping efforts break people into two groups. People that are caught doping and people that have not been caught doping. Athletes in the latter group may be clean, but that is a leap of faith to automatically assume that to be the case.

You're ignoring the ongoing attempts to obfuscate and mislead and outright lies that have been part of the Team Sky narrative since they started.

 

[blackcat]

Re: Re:

Current antidoping efforts break people into two groups. People that are caught doping and people that have not been caught doping. Athletes in the latter group may be clean, but that is a leap of faith to automatically assume that to be the case even if they exhibit transparency in some respects.

also, the definition of "caught doping" also is highly speculation on the false negative grey-zone. It always will fall down on the negative side.

this middle area is where anti-doping is enforced and where the war of propaganda lies. So to suggest it is bifurcated is too simple. this dichotomy does not stand the test

athletes caught
athletes not caught...


too simple, not accurate

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

Current antidoping efforts break people into two groups. People that are caught doping and people that have not been caught doping. Athletes in the latter group may be clean, but that is a leap of faith to automatically assume that to be the case even if they exhibit transparency in some respects.

also, the definition of "caught doping" also is highly speculation on the false negative grey-zone. It always will fall down on the negative side.

this middle area is where anti-doping is enforced and where the war of propaganda lies. So to suggest it is bifurcated is too simple. this dichotomy does not stand the test

athletes caught
athletes not caught...


too simple, not accurate

To be fair, Froome has already been “caught” doping at Romandie 2014 which he won by a good margin. Fortunately he had a TUE gained by unusual circumstances which meant he wouldn’t test positive for that specific substance.

 

[djpbaltimore]

Re: Re:

Current antidoping efforts break people into two groups. People that are caught doping and people that have not been caught doping. Athletes in the latter group may be clean, but that is a leap of faith to automatically assume that to be the case even if they exhibit transparency in some respects.

also, the definition of "caught doping" also is highly speculation on the false negative grey-zone. It always will fall down on the negative side.

this middle area is where anti-doping is enforced and where the war of propaganda lies. So to suggest it is bifurcated is too simple. this dichotomy does not stand the test

athletes caught
athletes not caught...


too simple, not accurate

What is not accurate about my statement. People are either in one group or the other. The people in the gray zone are in the not caught doping category. It is too simple to say doping vs clean. You may not like what the situation is, but my claim was accurate. It is up to you to show an example where someone does not fit into one group or the other. The dividing line is artificial but the bifurcation still exists.

 

[Jacques de Molay]

Re:

First 45 minutes were good, last 15min were the presenters ripping in to tucker after he'd left.

There was a lot of garbage in those last 15 minutes. Tucker was quick to respond to that as well.

Ross Tucker
‏@Scienceofsport
Ha, spot the agenda from the intro to the podcast. In 58 min, this is selected 'highlight'?

He's referring to this post from the podcast site itself.

At the heart of the conversation is the question about what power data means in the context of trying to establish whether a rider is clean or not – can it be a meaningful indicator of doping or is it, as Daniel Friebe suggests in discussion with Lionel Birnie and Richard Moore, “a blind alley”?

And should science and scientists be dispassionate or spikily opinionated? To the charge that in some of his commentary about Froome and Team Sky in particular he is guilty of making “leading statements,” Tucker responds: “Yeah, but that’s fair enough,” arguing that suspicion in today’s top riders is justified by the sport’s history.

Then this:

Ross Tucker
‏@Scienceofsport
If science is meant to be dispassionate, without opinion, then sign me up to be a gym teacher.

 

[blackcat]

Re:

You are still missing the main point that it is impossible to prove cleanliness. I don't know how to explain it in another way. SKY actions are besides the point. From the articles that I have read, Froome's goal with these studies was that he wanted to try to prove that he was clean by showing that he had a high VO2 max. He wanted the 2007 data out to suggest that there had been no major physiological transformation. Does this prove that he was clean? No, I don't think so. It just shows that he is willing to be minimally transparent. He is now in the group of people who have not been caught doping and been minimally transparent (with Chris Horner and others). Asking science to prove cleanliness is an unreasonable expectation at this point in time. If anybody states otherwise, they are wrong.

Admitting ignorance does not give a person carte blanche in a scientific discussion. I think you greatly overkicked your coverage with your claims and have not backed up them up with actual evidence or plausible reasoning. It seems like you have a bias against scientists for some reason.

I don't see a clear bias from King Boonen. I think his point was valid about the rhetoric of Sniper. Is obtaining facts before making a conclusion of that nature too much to ask?

no, I think I actually quoted Kurt Friedich Goedel on that

#Poe'sLaw

 

[Jacques de Molay]

Re: Re:

More relevantly, everyone has their own body fat distribution, so the suggestion that Froome could appear quite lean while still measuring 10% body fat via DXA is, at a minimum, quite plausible.

However, Swart did not describe Froome's appearance as "quite lean." The phrase used was "absolutely emaciated."

That seems noteworthy to me.

 

[blackcat]

Re: Re:

More relevantly, everyone has their own body fat distribution, so the suggestion that Froome could appear quite lean while still measuring 10% body fat via DXA is, at a minimum, quite plausible.

However, Swart did not describe Froome's appearance as "quite lean." The phrase used was "absolutely emaciated."

That seems noteworthy to me.

i would like to see how they ride doing caloric deficit to lose such weight and still improve their FTP and power to weight! is BS

#NOTNORMAL

 

[acoggan]

Re: Re:

In your desperate attempt for relevance or putting me down, you fail to acknowledge coggan allowed 10% fat but ignored the value that was claimed, 17%.

I was referring the 2015 DXA results, which put him at, what, 9.6%? (Or was it 9.8%?)

I do see now that Swart alluded to the Vuelta, but since that was 2011 and the 17% was measured (estimated) in 2007, I don't think that earlier value directly relates to how he appeared 4 y later.

IOW, to me Swart appears to have only been speaking in a relative sense, i.e., based on the DXA data Swart believes that Froome stores more fat centrally than others might, resulting in a disconnect between how he appears and what his body composition actually is.

 

[acoggan]

Re: Re:

i would like to see how they ride doing caloric deficit to lose such weight and still improve their FTP and power to weight! is BS

#NOTNORMAL

It's possible, at least for some individuals. For example, a couple of summers ago a young cat. 1 rider I know did exactly that, increasing his FTP not only relative to his body mass, but in absolute terms as well. (In fact, he even hypothesized that being in an energy deficit contributed to the increase in FTP, e.g., via fatty acid-induced up-regulation of PGC1alpha.)

 

[blackcat]

Re: Re:

I would also add Porte into this mix. The 2011 Vuelta for Froome, Wiggins had done a pre-transformation-transformation in 2009 however 2011 was his real stand out year with 2012 being utterly amazing. Porte became ripe in 2012 also, Rogers had his best year in years in 2012.

When clustered together the group of 4 certainly improved immensely from a power perspective alone. At one point Wiggins even out sprinted sprinters whilst sitting in his saddle to win stage 1 of Romandie in 2012.

is this LRP you speak of hog?

 

[djpbaltimore]

Re: Re:

no, I think I actually quoted Kurt Friedich Goedel on that

#Poe'sLaw

Ahhhh. OK, got it.

@DearWiggo. I think the whole ivory tower, us vs them, false dichotomy that you have setup is doing yourself a disservice. I don't think that I am smarter than you. It is not a matter of intelligence. It is about being informed and doing due diligence about topics being discussed. I think you came to a conclusion about Swart's fat % claims before you had the time to become informed and are sticking with it despite reasonable opinions suggesting that it is a plausible hypothesis based on the limited dataset. I am critiquing your posts and posting style, not you.

Sniper has claimed that Dr. Swart is 'compromised'. That little attack couched as a hypothetical from a seemingly neutral position is a tranparent example of rhetoric to me. No dictionary needed and my big scientist cap is only worn for Halloween.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Re: Re:

no, I think I actually quoted Kurt Friedich Goedel on that

#Poe'sLaw

@DearWiggo. I think the whole ivory tower, us vs them, false dichotomy that you have setup is doing yourself a disservice. I don't think that I am smarter than you. It is not a matter of intelligence. It is about being informed and doing due diligence about topics being discussed. I think you came to a conclusion about Swart's fat % claims before you had the time to become informed and are sticking with it despite reasonable opinions suggesting that it is a plausible hypothesis based on the limited dataset. I am critiquing your posts and posting style, not you.

So you don't know either then?

Glad we cleared that up.

 

[thehog]

The podcast with Ross Tucker and Jeroen Swart has just been posted.
http://thecyclingpodcast.com/podcast/41-the-scientists-speak

December 15 | The new Telegraph Cycling Podcast features part one of a two-part interview with sports scientists Jeroen Swart and Ross Tucker. Part two will be released later this week.

The South Africans, both based in Cape Town, have been among the most prominent voices in the discussion over power data and Chris Froome’s recent physiological tests. Swart was one of the scientists who tested Froome in the GSK laboratory in west London while Tucker has publicly questioned Froome’s performances and repeatedly called for greater transparency.

They met in Cape Town this week for a conversation moderated by Lionel Birnie and recorded exclusively for The Telegraph Cycling Podcast.

Is it correct that Swart is now saying "Chris" contacted him with respect to testing and not Michelle?

That differs substantially for his earlier claim.

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

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

 

[acoggan]

The podcast with Ross Tucker and Jeroen Swart has just been posted.
http://thecyclingpodcast.com/podcast/41-the-scientists-speak

December 15 | The new Telegraph Cycling Podcast features part one of a two-part interview with sports scientists Jeroen Swart and Ross Tucker. Part two will be released later this week.

The South Africans, both based in Cape Town, have been among the most prominent voices in the discussion over power data and Chris Froome’s recent physiological tests. Swart was one of the scientists who tested Froome in the GSK laboratory in west London while Tucker has publicly questioned Froome’s performances and repeatedly called for greater transparency.

They met in Cape Town this week for a conversation moderated by Lionel Birnie and recorded exclusively for The Telegraph Cycling Podcast.

Is it correct that Swart is now saying "Chris" contacted him with respect to testing and not Michelle?

That differs substantially for his earlier claim.

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

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

<rollseyes>

 

[thehog]

The podcast with Ross Tucker and Jeroen Swart has just been posted.
http://thecyclingpodcast.com/podcast/41-the-scientists-speak

December 15 | The new Telegraph Cycling Podcast features part one of a two-part interview with sports scientists Jeroen Swart and Ross Tucker. Part two will be released later this week.

The South Africans, both based in Cape Town, have been among the most prominent voices in the discussion over power data and Chris Froome’s recent physiological tests. Swart was one of the scientists who tested Froome in the GSK laboratory in west London while Tucker has publicly questioned Froome’s performances and repeatedly called for greater transparency.

They met in Cape Town this week for a conversation moderated by Lionel Birnie and recorded exclusively for The Telegraph Cycling Podcast.

Is it correct that Swart is now saying "Chris" contacted him with respect to testing and not Michelle?

That differs substantially for his earlier claim.

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

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

<rollseyes>

Most likely just an oversight from Swart... its can happen

After all the abuse he suffered..

It appears the remit for testing was more PR less scientific..

 

[djpbaltimore]

Re: Re:

no, I think I actually quoted Kurt Friedich Goedel on that

#Poe'sLaw

@DearWiggo. I think the whole ivory tower, us vs them, false dichotomy that you have setup is doing yourself a disservice. I don't think that I am smarter than you. It is not a matter of intelligence. It is about being informed and doing due diligence about topics being discussed. I think you came to a conclusion about Swart's fat % claims before you had the time to become informed and are sticking with it despite reasonable opinions suggesting that it is a plausible hypothesis based on the limited dataset. I am critiquing your posts and posting style, not you.

So you don't know either then?

Glad we cleared that up.

The main point is that I never claimed to know. Scientists can't be experts in every field, but a skill is determining who one is based on what people say/ write. The points made by acoggan about Dr. Swart's work make a lot of logical sense at least as a working hypothesis.

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

#Poe'sLaw

anyway, indeed, i'd say Kingboonen was a bit negative in the interpretation of that post.
I drew my impression from Jacques' excellent summary, but added a caveat. So yes, the "if" mattered.

Moving on from that, I still wonder why Swart is against Froome releasing passport data. I could be wrong, but in my eyes he seems unnecessarily defensive there. He could say "That's up to Froome to decide". And if you don't want to throw them out in the open, which i think is fair enough, why not give the data to an expert like Grappe or Swart or even Tucker or Ashenden/Parissotto?
Point being: why is Swart in defense mode, whereas as an independent researcher he should have a great time contemplating easy ways in which Froome could be more transparent in order to disprove certain rumors (such as his asthma or the bilharzia)

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

#Poe'sLaw

anyway, indeed, i'd say Kingboonen was a bit negative in the interpretation of that post.
I drew my impression from Jacques' excellent summary, but added a caveat. So yes, the "if" mattered.

Moving on from that, I still wonder why Swart is against Froome releasing passport data. I could be wrong, but in my eyes he seems unnecessarily defensive there. He could say "That's up to Froome to decide". And if you don't want to throw them out in the open, which i think is fair enough, why not give the data to an expert like Grappe or Swart or even Tucker or Ashenden/Parissotto?
Point being: why is Swart in defense mode, whereas as an independent researcher he should have a great time contemplating easy ways in which Froome could be more transparent in order to disprove certain rumors (such as his asthma or the bilharzia)

Agreed.

Considering they were doing a lot of testing, digging up data from 2007, it would have made perfect sense to compliment all of the output with ABP data.

Considering that they are attempting to educate a cyclical audience and “Chris had suffered abuse”, it would be a logical step to show the blood data.... unless there’s a range of anomalies within that data that would be unexplainable?

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

Agreed.

Considering they were doing a lot of testing, digging up data from 2007, it would have made perfect sense to compliment all of the output with ABP data.

Considering that they are attempting to educate a cyclical audience and “Chris had suffered abuse”, it would be a logical step to show the blood data.... unless there’s a range of anomalies within that data that would be unexplainable?

How dare you even contemplate that UCI would have been sitting on anomalous passport data without doing anything about it!
What an outrageous conspiracy theory.

http://velonews.competitor.com/2013/02/news/ashenden-releases-armstrongs-biological-passport-codes-never-reviewed-suspicious-samples_274561

http://velonews.competitor.com/2014/06/news/uci-accused-allowing-froome-unfair-use-corticosteroids_331970

http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?board=1&id=6865806&thread=6865806

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/circ-contador-given-favourable-treatment-by-uci-after-2010-tour-de-france-doping-positive/

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

Agreed.

Considering they were doing a lot of testing, digging up data from 2007, it would have made perfect sense to compliment all of the output with ABP data.

Considering that they are attempting to educate a cyclical audience and “Chris had suffered abuse”, it would be a logical step to show the blood data.... unless there’s a range of anomalies within that data that would be unexplainable?

How dare you even contemplate that UCI would have been sitting on anomalous passport data without doing anything about it!
What an outrageous conspiracy theory.

http://velonews.competitor.com/2013/02/news/ashenden-releases-armstrongs-biological-passport-codes-never-reviewed-suspicious-samples_274561

http://velonews.competitor.com/2014/06/news/uci-accused-allowing-froome-unfair-use-corticosteroids_331970

http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?board=1&id=6865806&thread=6865806

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/circ-contador-given-favourable-treatment-by-uci-after-2010-tour-de-france-doping-positive/

If the aim was “transparency” and to temper the “abuse Chris has suffered”, then the passport data would have complimented the data nicely. It would have also filled the huge gap between 2007 and 2015 along with it perhaps explaining the 2011 September overnight transformation.

Swart dropped the ball on this one. He could have made some good testing into something much much better. I sense that because his remit was personal, ie “after the abuse Chris has suffered”, then he wasn’t interested in digging into places which might skew his personal beliefs on Froome.

 

[sniper]

It's just darn difficult to argue with this list from Tucker, which was out in the open well before Froome underwent testing.

· Several sets of independent lab tests carried out through a season by an independent tester or testing body with no links to Team Sky, British Cycling or a national federation.
· Full disclosure of all medication including TUEs taken and prescribed since 2010 – the date from which Froome joined Team Sky.
· Full power to weight data released to an independent body for analysis – again from 2010 onwards. The data released in 2013 did not complete the picture.
· Conduct a full asthma examination to prove that the use of current medication is required, along with any relevant backdated prescriptions.
· Provide all Biological Passport data to an independent body.

And Froome hasn't met any of those calls. Couldnt even find scientists with no links to British Cycling.

 

[thehog]

Re:

It's just darn difficult to argue with this list from Tucker, which was out in the open well before Froome underwent testing.

· Several sets of independent lab tests carried out through a season by an independent tester or testing body with no links to Team Sky, British Cycling or a national federation.
· Full disclosure of all medication including TUEs taken and prescribed since 2010 – the date from which Froome joined Team Sky.
· Full power to weight data released to an independent body for analysis – again from 2010 onwards. The data released in 2013 did not complete the picture.
· Conduct a full asthma examination to prove that the use of current medication is required, along with any relevant backdated prescriptions.
· Provide all Biological Passport data to an independent body.

And Froome hasn't met any of those calls. Couldnt even find scientists with no links to British Cycling.

I have to agree. If you even look at the manner the CIRC panel was chosen it was independent. A “call from Michelle” which turned into “Chris contacted me’ to “after the abuse he suffered”, Swart has shown he is suffering from “personal bias”.

Did that effect the results? Perhaps. With the loss of the HR data one suspects that Swart should have picked up the monitor wasn’t working.

Again, Swart dropped the ball here.