The Froome Files, test data only thread

[thehog]

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....

I'm still none the wiser how you got to "fraud" other than you're attempting to bait myself, which in itself is very poor form and not within the rules of the forum.

Nevertheless, I have no issue that you may disagree with my opinion but you appear to be basing your opinions on "allusions", that you have interpreted from my posts, like "fraud", which has never been stated. Now you're claiming up that I'm being very careful with my words to sow the seeds of doubt?

You've made some serious leaps and interpretations there. On one hand you're telling us all not to interpret the data incorrectly but making those assumptions about other posters?

Perhaps I'm just here on a forum discussing the data/faxes/testing like everybody within the rules of the forum?

Rather than conspiracy you present...

 

[mrhender]

------Reminder to all------

Please keep comments on topic, and impersonal.

Thank you.

 

[Ventoux Boar]

Re: 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”.

This is:

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.

 

[djpbaltimore]

Re: Re:

I'm still none the wiser how you got to "fraud" other than you're attempting to bait myself, which in itself is very poor form and not within the rules of the forum.

Nevertheless, I have no issue that you may disagree with my opinion but you appear to be basing your opinions on "allusions", that you have interpreted from my posts, like "fraud", which has never been stated. Now you're claiming up that I'm being very careful with my words to sow the seeds of doubt?

You've made some serious leaps and interpretations there. On one hand you're telling us all not to interpret the data incorrectly but making those assumptions about other posters?

Perhaps I'm just here on a forum discussing the data/faxes/testing like everybody within the rules of the forum?

Rather than conspiracy you present...

Cherry-picking data is scientific fraud. I brought that point up at the time. Comparing Dr. Swart to a scientist portrayed as committing scientific fraud is equivalent to the accusation itself IMO.

A conspiracy assumes that a group is involved. When did I make that accusation?

 

[Jeroen Swart]

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

Yes. Which is why you became the only person I have actually blocked.

 

[mrhender]

A long back on forth discussing what a given poster said or didn't say, meant or didn't meant should not be continued here.

Move on, or if necessary take it to the sidebar thread.

viewtopic.php?f=11&t=21913&hilit=sidebar

Thank you.

 

[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

Yes. Which is why you became the only person I have actually blocked.

And all that only because I called you out on your unprofessional comments (calling someone a fascist supporter is also pretty unprofessional though) I guess it fits cause I'm only blocked by Sky fans and Mr and Mrs Cound

 

[thehog]

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

I thought the testing was a good idea, said as such prior and I was anticipating the release of data. I praised Swart for his work and he thanked me for it.

I'm not comfortable with certain aspects of the conclusions Swart made along with the fax(s) which Swart/Moore continue to avoid addressing - the two faxes are fundamentally different - yet the conclusions of the testing were made on the basis of that data. That is a worry.

If Mr. Swart returns I'd like to hear his view on those two faxes which look suspiciously like they have been doctored (IMHO).

I don't have any real issue with the 2015 tests, which I've said numerous times on this thread.

 

[The Hitch]

Re:

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)

First of all, there absolutely is "knowing". People who say "no one can know" are making the egotistical mistake of assuming that everyone else in the world has the exact same information as they do and the exact same mindset and cognitive skills as they do.

By the same principle that you yourself claim not to "know" if froome is doped or not, you also therefore can't "know" what information other people have access to.

Clearly in this world there are people with more information and clearly in this world there are people who are better able to make use of the information they do have.

Btw, out of interest, if we were to take Contador, would you say that the same template exists for him? People who believe he doped and people who believe he is clean but "nobody can KNOW?"

Then there are of course those who are truly neutral , "on the fence"

False. The neutrals can have opinions just like everyone else. Unless you are saying that in the world of sport everyone is so close minded that they base all their opinions on what they want to be true. Which unfortunately is true to a large extent but not always.

The word neutral refers to someones affiliation not their beliefs or how their mind response to changing facts on the ground.

the neutral is a person doesn't have any stake in whether Froome is doped or not. That doesn't mean, unless they are very weak mentally, that their opinions follow their heart and that they close their eyes to the evidence.

The correct template you should have posted looks like this.
Group A- people who want Froome to be doped.
Group B - people who want Froome to be clean.
Group C - people who have a stake in the matter either way.

But what a person wants to be true and what they think are true, are two very different issues. Its very important to keep the distinction.

In either case the majority in all 3 groups probably thinks Froome is doped.

 

[poupou]

As said, those tests will never show that Froome is clean, especillay when we have no doping control conducted for them. So J. Swart and others can only defend their work, but cannot not say more.

 

[thehog]

Re: 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”.

This is:

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.

The quote comes from Swarts very own interview with CyclingNews:

"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.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/swart-defends-froomes-physiological-testing-more-data-to-be-released-in-2016/

I believe Swart is now denying he said this? Did CyclingNews misquote? Or what I think he is saying is "the abuse he suffered" was not the reason he 'agreed' to undertake the testing, as that would indicate a potential bias.

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.

 

[LaFlorecita]

Re: Re:

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)

First of all, there absolutely is "knowing". People who say "no one can know" are making the egotistical mistake of assuming that everyone else in the world has the exact same information as they do and the exact same mindset and cognitive skills as they do.

By the same principle that you yourself claim not to "know" if froome is doped or not, you also therefore can't "know" what information other people have access to.

Clearly in this world there are people with more information and clearly in this world there are people who are better able to make use of the information they do have.

Btw, out of interest, if we were to take Contador, would you say that the same template exists for him? People who believe he doped and people who believe he is clean but "nobody can KNOW?"

Then there are of course those who are truly neutral , "on the fence"

False. The neutrals can have opinions just like everyone else. Unless you are saying that in the world of sport everyone is so close minded that they base all their opinions on what they want to be true. Which unfortunately is true to a large extent but not always.

The word neutral refers to someones affiliation not their beliefs or how their mind response to changing facts on the ground.

the neutral is a person doesn't have any stake in whether Froome is doped or not. That doesn't mean, unless they are very weak mentally, that their opinions follow their heart and that they close their eyes to the evidence.

The correct template you should have posted looks like this.
Group A- people who want Froome to be doped.
Group B - people who want Froome to be clean.
Group C - people who have a stake in the matter either way.

But what a person wants to be true and what they think are true, are two very different issues. Its very important to keep the distinction.

In either case the majority in all 3 groups probably thinks Froome is doped.

Sure, Hitch, whatever floats your boat.

 

[arcus]

Publishing exercise testing data reflects Froomes desire to mitigate negative speculation about his performance credibility. Clean or not, he's incentivized to control the narrative with fans, journalists, and current/potential sponsors. We know the testing results cannot establish if he's doped or rode clean, but many won't appreciate this, and the data will be used to to infer he's been exonerated. For me, it's a cynical move. And, yes, a PR one.

I understand that physiologic analysis of elite athletes (even doped ones!) is academically interesting, but I doubt it had anything to do with his motivation.

 

[red_flanders]

Re: Re:

The question is "what could Froome have done in the past to prove he was clean?"

There's nothing he or any other athlete could do to prove they were clean, as you can't prove a negative (and physiological testing is a waste of time in this context, as Team Sky well knows).

Fair enough. Change "prove" to "provide evidence".

What is the response to that? It's fine to correct my poor wording, but now that I have, what say you?

 

[red_flanders]

Re: Re:

I'm just stating objective facts.

Great. Accurate yet well short of useful. Now that it's been corrected...

That is, while there might be lots of things you can do to try to convince people that you don't dope (i.e., engage in PR), at the end of the day you can't prove a negative. Given that, if it were me I wouldn't even bother, figuring that whether or not I doped was between me, my conscience, and the sporting authorities (and my employer, if they required additional measures).

See but the problem is that SKY claimed they were going to be altogether transparent, that they would in fact show the cycling world that they are clean. What they did was anything but.

These are also facts, but actually meaningful ones. The question is not what you would do. The question is what could SKY and Froome have done to convince people they are clean. The fact is that long ago they decided, despite their PR and promises, not to provide any useful evidence of claimed cleanliness. So the question, "What more can they do", which started this exchange, is still the wrong question. It is a question invariably married with calling people "haters" and meant to indicate frustration with some perceived bias against SKY and/or Froome. It is a wholly fact-less inquiry. It is not looking for facts. It is looking to paint those who have looked at the facts and come to a reasonable, rational conclusion as being irrational, as "haters". It's dumb.

A reasonable person might ask the question "what could they have done", for which there are ample answers.

 

[Ventoux Boar]

Re: Re:

I believe Swart is now denying he said this? Did CyclingNews misquote? Or what I think he is saying is "the abuse he suffered" was not the reason he 'agreed' to undertake the testing, as that would indicate a potential bias.

I have no idea if you're walking back accusations of fraud or confirming them. You know where to ask the man himself, so why ask me? Also I believe we were asked to drop this discussion, so I will.

 

[Irondan]

Re:

A long back on forth discussing what a given poster said or didn't say, meant or didn't meant should not be continued here.

Move on, or if necessary take it to the sidebar thread.

viewtopic.php?f=11&t=21913&hilit=sidebar

Thank you.

You were asked to move on or take it to the sidebar thread if you guys feel the need to continue this line of discussion.

 

[Irondan]

Re: 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”.

This is:

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.

The quote comes from Swarts very own interview with CyclingNews:

"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.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/swart-defends-froomes-physiological-testing-more-data-to-be-released-in-2016/

I believe Swart is now denying he said this? Did CyclingNews misquote? Or what I think he is saying is "the abuse he suffered" was not the reason he 'agreed' to undertake the testing, as that would indicate a potential bias.

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 don't see the relevance of this line of questioning to JS.

Swart is not the topic of this thread.

Move it back to the topic at hand please.

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

I'm just stating objective facts.

These are also facts, but actually meaningful ones.

this.

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

I don't see the relevance of this line of questioning to JS.

Swart is not the topic of this thread.

Move it back to the topic at hand please.

In my humble opinion Swart is a legitimate part of the topic of the thread.
Swart has a stake in both the 2007 and the 2015 data. Though he is particularly involved in the 2015 data, on several occasions (podcast, twitter) he has committed himself also to the 2007 data.
The reliability/trustworhtiness of those two data sets obvious correlates positively with the reliability/trustworhtiness of Swart.

That said, I can't be bothered to engage with him.
I think it's a nobrainer. He's shown his colors plentifully. He's a smart guy yet incapable of discussing even the most basic pieces of evidence wrt Froome and doping.
And he's just. not. a very nice. person.
Even blocking a peace-loving and balanced poster like Florecita, and insulting/ridiculing a dozen of other twitterers without obvious reasons, other than that they were inquiring about Froome and doping.
He's on the bandwagon alright. And as Walsh and Moore have shown, once you're on it, it's darn difficult to get off.

 

[acoggan]

Re: Re:

The question is "what could Froome have done in the past to prove he was clean?"

There's nothing he or any other athlete could do to prove they were clean, as you can't prove a negative (and physiological testing is a waste of time in this context, as Team Sky well knows).

Fair enough. Change "prove" to "provide evidence".

What is the response to that?

Not physiological testing or providing power data, that's for sure.

 

[attila]

Calipers

So that would mean that your BF% would've been much higher if measured from a body scan, no?

My understanding is body scan actually shows a higher body fat %, 5% + I've seen in published journals.

 

[Irondan]

Re: Re:

I don't see the relevance of this line of questioning to JS.

Swart is not the topic of this thread.

Move it back to the topic at hand please.

In my humble opinion Swart is a legitimate part of the topic of the thread.
Swart has a stake in both the 2007 and the 2015 data. Though he is particularly involved in the 2015 data, on several occasions (podcast, twitter) he has committed himself also to the 2007 data.
The reliability/trustworhtiness of those two data sets obvious correlates positively with the reliability/trustworhtiness of Swart.

That said, I can't be bothered to engage with him.
I think it's a nobrainer. He's shown his colors plentifully. He's a smart guy yet incapable of discussing even the most basic pieces of evidence wrt Froome and doping.
And he's just. not. a very nice. person.
Even blocking a peace-loving and balanced poster like Florecita, and insulting/ridiculing a dozen of other twitterers without obvious reasons, other than that they were inquiring about Froome and doping.
He's on the bandwagon alright. And as Walsh and Moore have shown, once you're on it, it's darn difficult to get off.

I agree that Swart has a role in Froome's data collection but I don't agree that this thread should disect Jeroen Swart's character.

Perhaps he warrants a thread of his own?

That's something to think about...

 

[attila]

Re: Re:

I don't see the relevance of this line of questioning to JS.

Swart is not the topic of this thread.

Move it back to the topic at hand please.

In my humble opinion Swart is a legitimate part of the topic of the thread.
Swart has a stake in both the 2007 and the 2015 data. Though he is particularly involved in the 2015 data, on several occasions (podcast, twitter) he has committed himself also to the 2007 data.
The reliability/trustworhtiness of those two data sets obvious correlates positively with the reliability/trustworhtiness of Swart.

That said, I can't be bothered to engage with him.
I think it's a nobrainer. He's shown his colors plentifully. He's a smart guy yet incapable of discussing even the most basic pieces of evidence wrt Froome and doping.
And he's just. not. a very nice. person.
Even blocking a peace-loving and balanced poster like Florecita, and insulting/ridiculing a dozen of other twitterers without obvious reasons, other than that they were inquiring about Froome and doping.
He's on the bandwagon alright. And as Walsh and Moore have shown, once you're on it, it's darn difficult to get off.

I've followed these discussions from a distance and am wondering, aloud now, is there another example of a GT dominant rider who had no appreciable results in any discipline (track, GTs, one day races/classics, even crits, etc.) and through weight loss become the greatest GT rider of his/her time? If the data are to be believed, his power #s and VO2 combo would be dominant in some discipline.

 

[red_flanders]

Re: Re:

The question is "what could Froome have done in the past to prove he was clean?"

There's nothing he or any other athlete could do to prove they were clean, as you can't prove a negative (and physiological testing is a waste of time in this context, as Team Sky well knows).

Fair enough. Change "prove" to "provide evidence".

What is the response to that?

Not physiological testing or providing power data, that's for sure.

No point in debating with your agenda. Personally if a team had promised "complete transparency" power data would be a simple step. But we can't magically go back to pre-September 2011 and get it, so it's pointless. Their claims of transparency were nonsense. The question is what did THEY mean by complete transparency? Books by Walsh?

The point of this discussion had nothing to do with your views on power data. It was about people calling others "haters" and crying foul because "what more could Froome possibly do". What they could have done was fairly obvious, and they didn't.