The Froome Files, test data only thread

[sniper]

Re: Re:

Did that effect the results? Perhaps.

We can only speculate.
The problem is that we are forced to ask the question.
Not just with regards to Swart, mind, but also the GSK guys who Brailsford said are "good guys. I know them from their time at British Cycling", or something along those lines.

It's the same with conflicts of interest (CoI). CoI's in and of themselves are not proof of any wrongdoing. They're problematic in that they force us to ask the question. They take away trust.

 

[Ventoux Boar]

Re: Re:

my my.....you've fallen for 'the fax' hook line and sinker...the unbeliveable has been believed

I listened to a scientist with a reputation to protect say the 2007 data appears legit, so far, after speaking to the lab who did the tests. You're falling for an anonymous fantasist, with a long history of making stuff up, on the internet.

 

[blackcat]

Brailsford was indeed "big upping" Froome before the official contracts for Sky, in his final year with Barloworld then under Corti.

He had indeed tested him in the UK. He did say that Froome had the physiology to win in July, this is getting back now 7 years... a long time ago.

I dont know why this data has not been spoken about now, and why this would be a secret.

or is my memory once again failing me on Brailsford's comments on Froome in 2009, when to tell the truth, he was just another South African rider, albeit a bit of a polyglot* riding under the banner of his home country Kenya, well, home passport country, but had not he done all his highschooling in South Africa?

no, Brailsford did indeed have impressive testing numbers from Froome, I believe they had tested him themselves when Froome was getting his passport from the UK and maybe seeking the UK racing licence.

But everyone at the top is doping, I dont see the tedium in proof or no proof.

*folks are invited to pot(criticise) me on my lack of links and references here, but ask Libertine Seguros, she would remember in 2009 the same comments... and, this just maybe the most truthful post in this thread. People are just not being honest if they seek a proof when they know the top dozen in the Tour will all be on it, and the science defenders and other fans of Froome and Sky are equally if not more so duplicitous in their defense

 

[gillan1969]

Re: Re:

my my.....you've fallen for 'the fax' hook line and sinker...the unbeliveable has been believed

I listened to a scientist with a reputation to protect say the 2007 data appears legit, so far, after speaking to the lab who did the tests. You're falling for an anonymous fantasist, with a long history of making stuff up, on the internet.

I'm not falling for anyone...I have seen it all before...PEDs remain statistically speaking by far the most likely explanation of a pro cycling transforming from pack fodder to multiple GT champion...far more likely than say for example...he keeps his fat inside

besides...and I'm sure those who keep up with these things here could iluminate...EBH was oft talked about in terms which Froome should have been. i.e. he's got huge physiological potential...what is happening? With Froome...nothing...just one huge big shock in Aug '11

 

[Jeroen Swart]

Re: 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.

Hi Clinic Forum.

I am going to post only once in this space. I really don't think that this deserves more of my time than that.

The post above is nothing but pure vitriol.

Firstly - I have not at any point stated that I received the call during the Tour from Chris. If you listen to the podcast you will note that I said I received a call. I did not specify who called me. I previously stated that it was Michelle and I have not contradicted this at any time.

Secondly - I have not stated to anyone at any time that I agreed "...in response to the abuse he suffered...". If I have been quoted as stating this then that is not a reliable quote. I said no such thing.

I have followed this forum with a little interest as you all know.

The way that a small group of individuals on this forum move from topic to topic cherry using pure speculation and then casting aspersions is disgusting. You cherry pick comments or bits of data and then twist and manipulate these to infer that there is either fraud, bias or incompetence. When challenged with information to the contrary the topic immediately changes and a new round of speculation and aspersions starts.

I address the rest of this to Sniper but there are a good number of individuals who these comments apply to equally.

sniper wrote:
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.

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

A cursory glance at my timeline will show that I attempted to engage constructively with everyone to date (many comments from various people who commented on this and the amount of patience I have shown in doing this), including attempting to interact constructively with Vayer to begin with. However, he has nothing to provide other than obscure comments layered in innuendo and insults. He provides quite obviously incorrect data and when confronted with this he leaves the conversation or refuses to address these points. I addressed his arguments with very clear numbers which illustrate his lack of even a basic understanding of physiology. Mark Burnley happens to be very well informed and I am sure his credentials and knowledge will surpass yours by some margin of exponential proportions. If you believe otherwise then please provide your credentials and expertise and if you have the greater intellect then I will offer a humble apology.

I have blocked a single individual for repeatedly insulting me and not providing a single bit of meaningful discourse on any topic.

Your comments are nothing but pure trolling and as Wiggins put it "bone idle". You didn't even have the decency to listen to a podcast before pronouncing on it with aspersions again. Not only are you misinformed but you are clearly very lazy as well and extremely biased. Quite ironic considering your comments.

You know I am active on twitter and a simple task of asking for clarity on any point would have been a very easy and effective way to clear up any confusion. I can only assume that this hasn't been done because it would take away a lot of the fun of slandering and insulting someone. Why make any effort to be objective and rational on anything. It's so boring.

Case in point regarding the heart rate: I did notice that the heart rate signal had suddenly disappeared and pointed it out to the other scientists. This happened a few minutes before the end of the VO2max test. Other than trying to reposition the belt or try to remove the heart rate belt and replacing it with another one there is very little you can do in that situation. When a cyclist is riding at close to their maximum you cannot start tugging up their shirt and trying to pull off a belt from under their bibs to try and replace it. Your lack of insight and experience regarding this is clear but you are quick to provide scathing comment.

I don't hold any illusion that my comments will in any way improve the ethical conduct in this forum but at least I've had my opportunity to say my bit.

Good night and please don't expect any engagement beyond this one post.

Regards,

Jeroen

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

Did that effect the results? Perhaps.

We can only speculate.
The problem is that we are forced to ask the question.
Not just with regards to Swart, mind, but also the GSK guys who Brailsford said are "good guys. I know them from their time at British Cycling", or something along those lines.

It's the same with conflicts of interest (CoI). CoI's in and of themselves are not proof of any wrongdoing. They're problematic in that they force us to ask the question. They take away trust.

Speculation here is not the issue. Swart was contacted by the subject themselves. This wasn’t an open RFP type operation, selecting the most appropriate and independent testing body. Swart was hand selected by the subject themself. The personal bias is already there. The secondary bias is GSKs relationship with the EIS and Brailsford.

Most worrying is the conclusion made in the report issued outside of Esquire magazine:

Comparison of data collected from the GSK Human Performance Lab (2015) vs. that from Swiss Olympic Medical Centre (2007) suggests a similar absolute aerobic capacity (VO2peak). The significant improvement in aerobic capacity relative to body mass, is therefore due to a reduction in body mass. Importantly, the change in body mass is attributed to a large loss in bodyfat (~6kg), with a similar lean body mass recorded.

To be fair on Swart he does caution the determination (but probably too late as Esquire and every other media outlet ran with the "he lost weight" theorem).

*Results taken from original report from Swiss Olympic Medical Centre in July 2007.

No protocol or test equipment information provided in report, therefore direct comparisons should be interpreted with a degree of caution.

 

[blackcat]

coyle mkII

shoe fits, looks like ducks n torturing metaphors

 

[Ventoux Boar]

Re: Re:

The post above is nothing but pure vitriol.

Good night and please don't expect any engagement beyond this one post.

Regards,

Jeroen

Well said sir. Bravo.

 

[thehog]

Thanks for the post but I think you’re taking it all a little too personally. The published piece in Esquire is open for review, criticism and praise equally. If the expectation was only praise then perhaps bias is already in place?

People have had some concerns with the legitimacy of the fax(s) received which have obvious differences which has not been explained here nor on Twitter. Richard Moore refused to go into any further detail on the matter.

I don’t think there’s anything unusual with people exploring the testing and the results that were published, that’s why the testing was conducted was it not? There’s been views on all sides with respect to the testing and output. Not sure why there is this attempt to shut down discussion on the aspects which people weren’t comfortable with.

 

[blackcat]

Re: Re:

I don't hold any illusion that my comments will in any way improve the ethical conduct in this forum but at least I've had my opportunity to say my bit.

tis a bit rich there bro.

it is cycling... there was Baker and the free floyd fairness fund headed up by Hippocratic oath Arnie Baker, we had Ed Coyle, we have numerous other shady characters that inhabit cycling, and one may say inhibit ethics, in this ethical cesspool of cycling, so you may as well call out the clinic . The lies that have come out from Team Sky are prevalent and continue unabated with Brailsford and Froome. You yourself are wading into a hypocritical territory dude

 

[djpbaltimore]

Re: Re:

I don't hold any illusion that my comments will in any way improve the ethical conduct in this forum but at least I've had my opportunity to say my bit.

tis a bit rich there bro.

it is cycling... there was Baker and the free floyd fairness fund headed up by Hippocratic oath Arnie Baker, we had Ed Coyle, we have numerous other shady characters that inhabit cycling, and one may say inhibit ethics, in this ethical cesspool of cycling, so you may as well call out the clinic . The lies that have come out from Team Sky are prevalent and continue unabated with Brailsford and Froome. You yourself are wading into a hypocritical territory dude

Jeroen has a valid point. Nobody is immune from criticism. But much of the criticism is based on things that were factually untrue. That is the ethical failing and his post can't remedy that. It is too bad that the well has been so poisoned that any further discussion is not possible.

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

I don't hold any illusion that my comments will in any way improve the ethical conduct in this forum but at least I've had my opportunity to say my bit.

tis a bit rich there bro.

it is cycling... there was Baker and the free floyd fairness fund headed up by Hippocratic oath Arnie Baker, we had Ed Coyle, we have numerous other shady characters that inhabit cycling, and one may say inhibit ethics, in this ethical cesspool of cycling, so you may as well call out the clinic . The lies that have come out from Team Sky are prevalent and continue unabated with Brailsford and Froome. You yourself are wading into a hypocritical territory dude

Jeroen has a valid point. Nobody is immune from criticism. But much of the criticism is based on things that were factually untrue. That is the ethical failing and his post can't remedy that. It is too bad that the well has been so poisoned that any further discussion is not possible.

That’s a little dramatic. Nothing has been poisoned. There’s been some excellent discussion with regards to the testing. Other than said in jest, I’ve not seen anything that could be deemed factually incorrect. Most certainly, some have explored certain areas and have put forward “what if’ scenario’s, that is not unusual. That is a very valid manner to assert the quality of testing output. Mr. Swart appears to suggest, if your question is over 140 characters, he doesn’t want to know about it and is “vitriol” from those whom are “bone idle”. A truly odd statement to make.

 

[blackcat]

Re: Re:

That’s a little dramatic. Nothing has been poisoned. There’s been some excellent discussion with regards to the testing. Other than said in jest, I’ve not seen anything that could be deemed factually incorrect. Most certainly, some have explored certain areas and have put forward “what if’ scenario’s, that is not unusual. That is a very valid manner to assert the quality of testing output. Mr. Swart appears to suggest, if your question is over 140 characters, he doesn’t want to know about it and is “vitriol” from those whom are “bone idle”. A truly odd statement to make.

i prefer my go-to boffins and academics, hoberman savulescu and yesalis

 

[djpbaltimore]

Dramatic? You accused him of scientific fraud. That would be a deal-breaker for almost anyone. Your post that he referred to was not factually correct, crafted (intentionally?) to make him look like he was changing his stories. You are saying that was all in jest?

viewtopic.php?p=1846361#p1846361

 

[LaFlorecita]

Re: Re:

A cursory glance at my timeline will show that I attempted to engage constructively with everyone to date (many comments from various people who commented on this and the amount of patience I have shown in doing this),

Hi Jeroen,

Do you consider telling "I heard Donald Trump is looking for a campaigner" to someone who's just asking some questions about your comments, an attempt to engage constructively?

PS Kudos for joining and explaining your thoughts

 

[Ventoux Boar]

Re: Re:

That’s a little dramatic. Nothing has been poisoned. There’s been some excellent discussion with regards to the testing. Other than said in jest, I’ve not seen anything that could be deemed factually incorrect. Most certainly, some have explored certain areas and have put forward “what if’ scenario’s, that is not unusual. That is a very valid manner to assert the quality of testing output. Mr. Swart appears to suggest, if your question is over 140 characters, he doesn’t want to know about it and is “vitriol” from those whom are “bone idle”. A truly odd statement to make.

You've been trying to discredit and smear everyone involved in this exercise. Swart was generous describing one of your posts as pure vitriol.

 

[thehog]

Re:

Dramatic? You accused him of scientific fraud. That would be a deal-breaker for almost anyone. Your post that he referred to was not factually correct, crafted (intentionally?) to make him look like he was changing his stories. You are saying that was all in jest?

viewtopic.php?p=1846361#p1846361

There we go again, being overly dramatic. Nowhere in my post did I accuse Mr. Swart of being ‘fraudulent’. Those words are yours not mine. I merely pointed out that he took two data points (weight / fat) which were recorded 8 years apart and made a conclusion about Mr. Froome’s “big engine”.

In that determination he left out 8 years of data which could have easily been obtained. It was a stretch to make the conclusion that he did.

That’s not accusing a person of “scientific fraud”.

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

That’s a little dramatic. Nothing has been poisoned. There’s been some excellent discussion with regards to the testing. Other than said in jest, I’ve not seen anything that could be deemed factually incorrect. Most certainly, some have explored certain areas and have put forward “what if’ scenario’s, that is not unusual. That is a very valid manner to assert the quality of testing output. Mr. Swart appears to suggest, if your question is over 140 characters, he doesn’t want to know about it and is “vitriol” from those whom are “bone idle”. A truly odd statement to make.

You've been trying to discredit and smear everyone involved in this exercise. Swart was generous describing one of your posts as pure vitriol.

To the contrary. I praised Swart's testing several times and to him personally.

 

[djpbaltimore]

Yes, it is. You directly compared him to a scientist who intentionally cherrypicked data to suit his hypothesis. The allusion is clear as day. At least have the good grace to admit that this is what you were doing.

 

[LaFlorecita]

Re: Re:

To the contrary. I praised Swart's testing several times and to him personally.

Hog I must compliment you, you have been unusually rational about this data release

 

[thehog]

Re:

Yes, it is. You directly compared him to a scientist who intentionally cherrypicked data to suit his hypothesis. The allusion is clear as day. At least have the good grace to admit that this is what you were doing.

I'm sorry but its not. Again the term "fraud" is yours not mine.

Many have supported the Keyes Seven Country Study, stating there was good reason for him dropping some of the test data from 22 to 7 countries.

However its my opinion that in the Swart study that there are too many variables that could have and would have occurred in those 8 years to come out with one conclusion "it was his weight".

That's a very reasonable assessment. Not sure how or why you're jumping all the way to "fraud" from there.

 

[armchairclimber]

Frankly, I think he has a point. There are some on here who have interrogated the data and the process in a fair (on the whole) and open minded (on the whole) manner. I would include Hog in that, and I hope he remains in that group. There are others who have brought in the pre-judged/negative/piss-takery and personal bickering that probably should have been in the main Froome thread. Some of the stuff written in here has verged upon abusive towards Swart who was just the fella collecting the data and making some observations about it in general terms...with a peer reviewed paper to come, that's all he could do really Some posters have addressed queries to him directly on Twitter, which seems the best way to go about it.
Personally, I am not in the Froome is clean camp and didn't expect any of this data to be anything other than interesting... ie. what kind of engine drives that mental, seated, high cadence attacking style... and on other occasions just works to a set power output, presumably with some knowledge that it will reel in short burst attacks. I certainly didn't expect it to answer the question of the 2011 miracle. But that's just my take.
I was really hooked on this thread for the first few days because the data was being looked at and interpreted by the likes of MI, Coggan and Alex. Hog was asking interesting questions. It was fascinating. Then it became almost impossible to read with all the extraneous noise of people being smart arsed/ bringing up all sorts of stuff about Froome's character, his past, Bilharzia etc etc.

If you are still looking in Jeroen, it would actually be good if you could stick around and engage, even if just chipping in now and again. There are some good posters in the clinic who you could easily have productive dialogue with. You don't have to respond to those who are personally abusive ... you can just report any transgression to the mods. That's what they are there for. In that respect, the clinic is better than the Twittersphere.

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

my my.....you've fallen for 'the fax' hook line and sinker...the unbeliveable has been believed

I listened to a scientist with a reputation to protect say the 2007 data appears legit, so far, after speaking to the lab who did the tests. You're falling for an anonymous fantasist, with a long history of making stuff up, on the internet.

Personal attack? That really aids the discussion!

The alternative? Believe in riders, teams, doctors etc who all make a living from the sport who have been shown to be liars!

I hav enot seen any changes to the sport that make me think anyone who has not got a PED program can hope to win anything of note. Froome's data has more questions than it answers.

 

[LaFlorecita]

I've been thinking about this

There are two "sides" in this debate
There are those who believe Froome is doped, and those who believe he is clean (there is no "knowing" here)
Then there are of course those who are truly neutral , "on the fence"
Both sides think they are neutral, rational and fair.
Both sides think the other side are a bunch of nutters and/or have an "agenda"
Both sides think the others are a "small minority"
Case in point:
Tucker and Swart (and that strange individual Dr Burnley who's trying very hard to be relevant too)
CN forum and Bikeradar forum, I've done some reading on BR and it's almost funny how much it is the polar opposite of this forum in terms of general consenus. They may even be worse because the members push even harder for someone with a different opinion to be banned ("troll").

And on twitter dozens of other examples can be found
What I'm trying to say is maybe consider this before you post one of more of the 3 points I listed above. It would save us much endless bickering, I think.

 

[djpbaltimore]

Re: Re:

I'm sorry but its not. Again the term "fraud" is yours not mine.

Many have supported the Keyes Seven Country Study, stating there was good reason for him dropping some of the test data from 22 to 7 countries.

However its my opinion that in the Swart study that there are too many variables that could have and would have occurred in those 8 years to come out with one conclusion "it was his weight".

That's a very reasonable assessment. Not sure how or why you're jumping all the way to "fraud" from there.

Yes, you have been very careful in your wording. As I said, your allusions were clear IMO. Interesting that you choose not to post a balanced view of that study until now.

It is the same thing with the faxes. You are being very careful to sow doubts without outwardly claiming that the 2007 data was falsified.

And your opinions about the testing are totally valid. All the other insinuations and innuendo, I disagree with....