The Froome Files, test data only thread

[blackcat]

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)
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.

you cannot isolate froome in a vacuum. I think this is Froome and LRP and a few other World Tour winners who feel agrieved when the doping spotlight is pointed in their direction. well it comes with the territory.

my position, among about 12 others, or eleven others on the forum, think everyone who wins big, a monument, and grand tour, a World Tour race like Paris Nice, they are doping in my opinion and the other eleven opinions.

I dont think Froome is unique. He is doing what a winner in cycling has to do. Of poor character? No, I have never asserted that. Doping =/= axiomatically of poor character. Like the poster 131313 said, and I am sure HelmutRoole mimics him, there are good-guy dopers, and bad-guy clean guys. it is mutually exclusive, value neutral. You cannot win big and win clean without the dope. They still manifest extraordinary work ethic, discipline, courage, and an insider-rule sportsmanship. yes, even with the asthma puffer in the last 3kms. As I said, these are the insider rules the peloton has endowed itself.

 

[Merckx index]

Re: Re:

The passport can't be used to prove that you are clean, it can only be used to prove that you have doped.

The passport can't be used to prove you have doped. It can be used to provide compelling evidence that you have doped. The distinction may seem like quibbling, except that as soon as we recognize that as scientists we are always talking about probabilities, the statement that you can't prove someone is clean is seen to be too facile. We can provide evidence that someone has doped, and we can provide evidence that someone is clean, and in both cases, it's the strength of the evidence that matters.

One might say it's more difficult to provide compelling evidence that one is clean than that one doped, but evidence that falls short of that is still valuable. The relationship is asymmetric, yes, but it's not as black and white as you are implying.

I'm just stating objective facts. 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).

Again, only if my employer expected more from me would I go beyond that.

Every pro athlete is in effect employed by the fans of his sport. No fans, no salary. People who follow the sport of course have the right to demand evidence bearing on whether performance was achieved clean.

 

[42x16ss]

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)
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.

I had a peek in there the other day and the BR guys just try and derail the thread when a troll pops in. Mildly amusing I must say.

 

[The Hitch]

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.

You shouldn't get offended just because someone challenges the points you make in your post.

Your portrayal of this as an all sides equal debate, doesn't work here. Because there is a right answer and a wrong answer. Froome cannot be both doped and clean at the same time.

He is either one or the other. One side is 100% right and the other is 100% wrong.
So both sides cannot be the same as eachother. The playing field is unequal to begin with.

That kind of analysis can work for theoretical debates where there is no correct answer. Eg- who would win in a fight between batman and superman.

 

[The Hitch]

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)
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.

I had a peek in there the other day and the BR guys just try and derail the thread when a troll pops in. Mildly amusing I must say.

Isn't 90% of bikeradar, white British middle aged men nostalgic for the empire (of which froome and wiggos reeducation of all those barbarian foreign dopers is a modern day extension)?

 

[acoggan]

Re: Re:

The passport can't be used to prove you have doped.

But in point of fact, it can, at least in the eyes of the anti-doping authorities, whose opinion in the end is the only one that matters. OTOH, if you haven't been sanctioned by them as of yet, it only means that you haven't been sanctioned as of yet, not that you're not a doper.

Every pro athlete is in effect employed by the fans of his sport. No fans, no salary. People who follow the sport of course have the right to demand evidence bearing on whether performance was achieved clean.

Right, but unlike, e.g., NASCAR drivers cyclists are still rewarded almost exclusively based on their performance, not on their image in the eyes of the public. Thus, you can rant and rave and demand all the evidence you want, but somebody like, e.g., Wiggins can call you a "bone-idle wanker" (or whatever his exact choice of words) and they will still get paid the big bucks just as long as they keep on performing.

 

[acoggan]

Re: Re:

No point in debating with your agenda.

I have no agenda, simply opinions.

 

[thehog]

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...

What was being discussed was the "approach" and "method" of the testing and less Swart himself. The fact that Swart was attempting to counter the "abuse" Froome faced at the Tour, the testing may not have been exactly impartial. I think the 2015 data is sound. It was the massive leap from the non-validated 2007 data to 2015 is where Swart lost me entirely and probably everyone else.

 

[42x16ss]

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)
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.

I had a peek in there the other day and the BR guys just try and derail the thread when a troll pops in. Mildly amusing I must say.

Isn't 90% of bikeradar, white British middle aged men nostalgic for the empire (of which froome and wiggos reeducation of all those barbarian foreign dopers is a modern day extension)?

The little bit I could read suggested that. I was laughing so hard I couldn't see through the tears though

 

[Jacques de Molay]

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.

Hold on.

I suggested that "your BF% would've been much higher" with a body scan.

You suggested that "body scan actually shows a higher body fat%."

So, then we're saying the exact same thing, right?

 

[Merckx index]

Flor:

Then there are of course those who are truly neutral , "on the fence"
Both sides think they are neutral, rational and fair.

You seem to be conflating two different definitions of neutral. First, one can be neutral with regard to the conclusion, whether Froome is doping or isn’t. Someone can take the position of not knowing the answer to this and not having an opinion on it. You imply this definition of neutral when you characterize it as “on the fence”.

But this definition is inconsistent with your point that both sides think they’re neutral. By this definition, neither side thinks it’s neutral, nor even that it should be neutral. The Clinic is very intentionally not being neutral by arguing that Froome is doping, and his supporters are the same arguing that he isn’t. And they are both taking these non-neutral positions even as they both may claim to be fair and rational.

Example: I’m not neutral on the question of global warming, nor on evolution vs. Creationism. I think I’m fair and rational on these issues, and even further, that the beliefs that I have are the result of being fair and rational. So being fair and rational does not necessarily associate with being neutral, and vice-versa.

A second definition of neutral involves not a conclusion, but a process. Someone might claim to be neutral on an issue because he or she is attempting to be fair and rational and objective. This is presumably what you mean by your second point. But this is not a very good definition of neutral, because the term neutral implies a position midway between two extremes, and that's not what fair and rationale is about. Fair and rational might be contrasted with bias, emotion rather than reason, what one wants as opposes to what appears to be the case. But what is the other pole that makes fair and rational neutral? None that I can see. Fair and rational is regarded as clear-cut better to the alternative, not a compromise between two opposing positions, nor a fallback position due to lack of knowledge.

In short, I think the term neutral is frequently misunderstood, and often viewed as being an admirable position, when at best it's just an honest admission of ignorance. Neutrality of conclusion certainly doesn't mean lack of bias or perspective.

Both sides think the others are a "small minority"

Nope. The number of Froome supporters who post in the Clinic may be a small minority, but in the world at large they aren’t, and I don’t know anyone in the Clinic who thinks they are. If they really were, the Clinic wouldn’t spend so much effort in arguing with them. Elsewhere in CN forums, there are all kinds of crank views expressed, and no one spends much time arguing with them just because they are in such a minority.

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.

Pretty naïve, I’d say. It’s like pointing out that there are Democrats, Republicans and Independents, and if everyone realized this, there’s be a lot less political arguing. Yeah, right.

That kind of analysis can work for theoretical debates where there is no correct answer. Eg- who would win in a fight between batman and superman.

Are you serious? How would Superman not destroy Batman? This kind of question is even more conducive to a correct answer than Froome doping, because it depends not on empirical findings but logic.

A more debatable question would be who would win between Batman and Spiderman. But even there, Spiderman looks to be clearly superior.

 

[Jacques de Molay]

I read it as releasing the previously collected blood data. Of course that is helpful only if the collection was quite close in time to the GSK tests.

According to the dates provided, the only previous test would've been from a full month prior, on July 13. The GSK session was on August 17, and Froome had another bio-passport test on August 20th. I suppose the latter one would be of more value in terms of proximity to the GSK testing, but the quotes from Swart are still a bit confusing (although I did reach to him about this. I'll post his response).

Jeroen Swart did respond to me, and it's too bad the specifics of this were either left out of the Shane Stokes interview, or overlooked altogether by CyclingTips.

He informed me that what he originally wanted was to have blood tests done "there in the lab by a NADO to ensure validity." He went on to say, "But this was not possible on the day, so the data that we do have, and which were released, are from the ADAMS data closest to the day of the test."

That is precisely what I suggested upthread.

I'm assuming, have to wait until the official peer review journal article is published, that any blood drawn during this testing, will also be sent to approved WADA testing lab and evaluated completely right?

I would have to believe that the only way to submit blood for testing under the WADA standards would be if that blood was drawn by the appropriate people with the proper authorization and who followed the necessary protocol.

So that solves at least one mystery.
It was indeed Swart's desire to have blood drawn on the same day of the GSK tests, by the appropriate and authorized people, for reasons he originally stated to Shane Stokes in the following exchange.

CyclingTips: But as you say yourself, two data points don’t tell you anything. The whole point of this exercise is to show transparency, and so releasing more blood values seems important…

Jeroen Swart: Well, the first thing is I asked them to release the values on the day of the testing, because I wanted to ensure that the people didn’t think that he rocked up to the lab with a haematocrit of 53 or something like that. In other words, produced a performance to justify his Tour performance by having somehow blood doped.

Much of the confusion from the original quote stems from the use of phrase "the values," as opposed to just "values." Again, it's a point that I wish Shane had followed up at the time, or that the interview had been edited for more clarity.

As for why it was "not possible on the day" to have those blood tests done by a NADO, I can only, at this point, assume logistical difficulties. I've no reason to suspect anything conspiratorial, otherwise why would have Swart even mentioned it to Shane Stokes in the first place, especially when it was he, Swart, who volunteered the info to begin with?

FWIW, I hadn't even realized that Swart had an account here dating back several years, and had already posted in the past.


Jeroen, if you're still reading, feel free to chime in.

 

[LaFlorecita]

Flor:

Then there are of course those who are truly neutral , "on the fence"
Both sides think they are neutral, rational and fair.

You seem to be conflating two different definitions of neutral. First, one can be neutral with regard to the conclusion, whether Froome is doping or isn’t. Someone can take the position of not knowing the answer to this and not having an opinion on it. You imply this definition of neutral when you characterize it as “on the fence”.

But this definition is inconsistent with your point that both sides think they’re neutral. By this definition, neither side thinks it’s neutral, nor even that it should be neutral. The Clinic is very intentionally not being neutral by arguing that Froome is doping, and his supporters are the same arguing that he isn’t. And they are both taking these non-neutral positions even as they both may claim to be fair and rational.

Example: I’m not neutral on the question of global warming, nor on evolution vs. Creationism. I think I’m fair and rational on these issues, and even further, that the beliefs that I have are the result of being fair and rational. So being fair and rational does not necessarily associate with being neutral, and vice-versa.

A second definition of neutral involves not a conclusion, but a process. Someone might claim to be neutral on an issue because he or she is attempting to be fair and rational and objective. This is presumably what you mean by your second point. But this is not a very good definition of neutral, because the term neutral implies a position midway between two extremes, and that's not what fair and rationale is about. Fair and rational might be contrasted with bias, emotion rather than reason, what one wants as opposes to what appears to be the case. But what is the other pole that makes fair and rational neutral? None that I can see. Fair and rational is regarded as clear-cut better to the alternative, not a compromise between two opposing positions, nor a fallback position due to lack of knowledge.

In short, I think the term neutral is frequently misunderstood, and often viewed as being an admirable position, when at best it's just an honest admission of ignorance. Neutrality of conclusion certainly doesn't mean lack of bias or perspective.

Both sides think the others are a "small minority"

Nope. The number of Froome supporters who post in the Clinic may be a small minority, but in the world at large they aren’t, and I don’t know anyone in the Clinic who thinks they are. If they really were, the Clinic wouldn’t spend so much effort in arguing with them. Elsewhere in CN forums, there are all kinds of crank views expressed, and no one spends much time arguing with them just because they are in such a minority.

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.

Pretty naïve, I’d say. It’s like pointing out that there are Democrats, Republicans and Independents, and if everyone realized this, there’s be a lot less political arguing. Yeah, right.

That kind of analysis can work for theoretical debates where there is no correct answer. Eg- who would win in a fight between batman and superman.

Are you serious? How would Superman not destroy Batman? This kind of question is even more conducive to a correct answer than Froome doping, because it depends not on empirical findings but logic.

A more debatable question would be who would win between Batman and Spiderman. But even there, Spiderman looks to be clearly superior.

You completely misunderstood my point, but carry on. I'm not going to explain it if you're so obviously not open to it.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Speaking of those that commented on Froome's testing (Swart, Vayer and Burnley)...
https://drmarkburnley.wordpress.com/2015/12/15/this-oxygen-uptake-value-doesnt-look-right-on-interpreting-exercise-tests-in-athletes/

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

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.

good call, agreed.

Perhaps he warrants a thread of his own?

i think if we stick to your call above (i.e. not get too personal), regular discussion of the Swart vs. Tucker podcasts thematically fits fine in this thread. just my 2 cents of course.

 

[sniper]

Re:

Speaking of those that commented on Froome's testing (Swart, Vayer and Burnley)...
https://drmarkburnley.wordpress.com/2015/12/15/this-oxygen-uptake-value-doesnt-look-right-on-interpreting-exercise-tests-in-athletes/

Mark Burnley and Andy Coggan, both on the editorial board of the journal that pubilshed Coyle's crap paper on Armstrong.
Lol, Burnley, surprised and angry to learn Armstrong doped.

Like Andy Coggan, I’m on the EB of this journal. When the Armstrong scandal broke, I stated on Twitter that the paper should be retracted. That was nothing other than an angry reaction to Armstrong rather than Ed Coyle.

http://retractionwatch.com/2013/03/18/lance-armstrong-in-the-scientific-literature-a-reconsideration/

This is also Mark Burnley:
https://twitter.com/drmarkburnley/status/641519132719104000

 

[harryh]

Re:

Ball, not the man.

Speaking of those that commented on Froome's testing (Swart, Vayer and Burnley)...
https://drmarkburnley.wordpress.com/2015/12/15/this-oxygen-uptake-value-doesnt-look-right-on-interpreting-exercise-tests-in-athletes/

Good article.

 

[sniper]

the twitter feeds of burnley and swart are goldmines.

I liked this one from Mark Burnley.
It's an exercise in critical thinking. Pointed out that the BMI on the fax is false, he responds:

Mark Burnley ‏@DrMarkBurnley 8. Dez.
@EwonSprokler @JeroenSwart @BySpoke @maximus_hoggus so there's a rounding error on a fax. BMI means nothing to athletes anyway.

Mark Burnley ‏@DrMarkBurnley 8. Dez.
@EwonSprokler @JeroenSwart @BySpoke @maximus_hoggus still no reason to doubt the data. Policy might be to round down BMI. Useless anyway.

Ewon Zeilstra ‏@EwonSprokler 8. Dez.
@DrMarkBurnley @JeroenSwart @BySpoke @maximus_hoggus either that or his weight was wrong.

Mark Burnley ‏@DrMarkBurnley 8. Dez.
@EwonSprokler @JeroenSwart @BySpoke @maximus_hoggus spoiler: sports physiologists know how to use weighing scales.


Or this one from Swart, redefining "way to miss the point":

BySpoke ‏@BySpoke 7. Dez.
@jeroenswart @drmarkburnley @ewonsprokler There are dissimilarities between the two documents. Seems to me it is legitimate to question why.

Jeroen Swart ‏@JeroenSwart 7. Dez.
@BySpoke @DrMarkBurnley @EwonSprokler ok. I have confirmed that the alterations were made by Esquire to highlight certain sections.

 

[King Boonen]

Re: Re:

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.

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.

Continued in sidebar.

viewtopic.php?f=11&t=21913&p=1847738#p1847738

 

[gillan1969]

Re: Re:

Ball, not the man.

Speaking of those that commented on Froome's testing (Swart, Vayer and Burnley)...
https://drmarkburnley.wordpress.com/2015/12/15/this-oxygen-uptake-value-doesnt-look-right-on-interpreting-exercise-tests-in-athletes/

Good article.

probably too good

as it demonstrates that it might be people on the ground in the 'university of life' shall we say that might recognise a doper...vayer with his mutant, cram with his smelly fish and armstrong with his not normal.

who would I trust more to pick a doper?...all of the above over Burnley and Swart

PS Burnley does think rather a lot of himself..
"Now, I consider myself something of an expert here. In fact, I’d say that the number of people in the world who understand the VO2 response to exercise better than me could comfortably fit in a double-decker bus, and some of them are dead."

In his hubris he should be reminded of our friends at Long Term Capital Management

 

[King Boonen]

Re: Re:

Speaking of those that commented on Froome's testing (Swart, Vayer and Burnley)...
https://drmarkburnley.wordpress.com/2015/12/15/this-oxygen-uptake-value-doesnt-look-right-on-interpreting-exercise-tests-in-athletes/

Dreadful article. I hope the guy is not a teacher anywhere.
He really is very good though at making simple things appear complicated!

I really hate it when people write something like this:

6290-1000 = 5290/425 = 12.4 mL/min/W

It's as bad as text speak.



Edit: Having considered this blog I've realised that it has nothing to do with Froome, it's just talking about Vayers' faulty data and understanding of that case so is really off topic. Sorry, should be posted elsewhere.

 

[Irondan]

Please post comments to the topic at hand.

Any off topic comments will be deleted.

 

[The Hitch]

Flor:

Then there are of course those who are truly neutral , "on the fence"
Both sides think they are neutral, rational and fair.

You seem to be conflating two different definitions of neutral. First, one can be neutral with regard to the conclusion, whether Froome is doping or isn’t. Someone can take the position of not knowing the answer to this and not having an opinion on it. You imply this definition of neutral when you characterize it as “on the fence”.

But this definition is inconsistent with your point that both sides think they’re neutral. By this definition, neither side thinks it’s neutral, nor even that it should be neutral. The Clinic is very intentionally not being neutral by arguing that Froome is doping, and his supporters are the same arguing that he isn’t. And they are both taking these non-neutral positions even as they both may claim to be fair and rational.

Example: I’m not neutral on the question of global warming, nor on evolution vs. Creationism. I think I’m fair and rational on these issues, and even further, that the beliefs that I have are the result of being fair and rational. So being fair and rational does not necessarily associate with being neutral, and vice-versa.

A second definition of neutral involves not a conclusion, but a process. Someone might claim to be neutral on an issue because he or she is attempting to be fair and rational and objective. This is presumably what you mean by your second point. But this is not a very good definition of neutral, because the term neutral implies a position midway between two extremes, and that's not what fair and rationale is about. Fair and rational might be contrasted with bias, emotion rather than reason, what one wants as opposes to what appears to be the case. But what is the other pole that makes fair and rational neutral? None that I can see. Fair and rational is regarded as clear-cut better to the alternative, not a compromise between two opposing positions, nor a fallback position due to lack of knowledge.

In short, I think the term neutral is frequently misunderstood, and often viewed as being an admirable position, when at best it's just an honest admission of ignorance. Neutrality of conclusion certainly doesn't mean lack of bias or perspective.

Both sides think the others are a "small minority"

Nope. The number of Froome supporters who post in the Clinic may be a small minority, but in the world at large they aren’t, and I don’t know anyone in the Clinic who thinks they are. If they really were, the Clinic wouldn’t spend so much effort in arguing with them. Elsewhere in CN forums, there are all kinds of crank views expressed, and no one spends much time arguing with them just because they are in such a minority.

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.

Pretty naïve, I’d say. It’s like pointing out that there are Democrats, Republicans and Independents, and if everyone realized this, there’s be a lot less political arguing. Yeah, right.

That kind of analysis can work for theoretical debates where there is no correct answer. Eg- who would win in a fight between batman and superman.

Are you serious? How would Superman not destroy Batman? This kind of question is even more conducive to a correct answer than Froome doping, because it depends not on empirical findings but logic.

A more debatable question would be who would win between Batman and Spiderman. But even there, Spiderman looks to be clearly superior.

I responded in the Froome thread.

 

[djpbaltimore]

I read it as releasing the previously collected blood data. Of course that is helpful only if the collection was quite close in time to the GSK tests.

According to the dates provided, the only previous test would've been from a full month prior, on July 13. The GSK session was on August 17, and Froome had another bio-passport test on August 20th. I suppose the latter one would be of more value in terms of proximity to the GSK testing, but the quotes from Swart are still a bit confusing (although I did reach to him about this. I'll post his response).

Jeroen Swart did respond to me, and it's too bad the specifics of this were either left out of the Shane Stokes interview, or overlooked altogether by CyclingTips.

He informed me that what he originally wanted was to have blood tests done "there in the lab by a NADO to ensure validity." He went on to say, "But this was not possible on the day, so the data that we do have, and which were released, are from the ADAMS data closest to the day of the test."

That is precisely what I suggested upthread.

I'm assuming, have to wait until the official peer review journal article is published, that any blood drawn during this testing, will also be sent to approved WADA testing lab and evaluated completely right?

I would have to believe that the only way to submit blood for testing under the WADA standards would be if that blood was drawn by the appropriate people with the proper authorization and who followed the necessary protocol.

So that solves at least one mystery.
It was indeed Swart's desire to have blood drawn on the same day of the GSK tests, by the appropriate and authorized people, for reasons he originally stated to Shane Stokes in the following exchange.

CyclingTips: But as you say yourself, two data points don’t tell you anything. The whole point of this exercise is to show transparency, and so releasing more blood values seems important…

Jeroen Swart: Well, the first thing is I asked them to release the values on the day of the testing, because I wanted to ensure that the people didn’t think that he rocked up to the lab with a haematocrit of 53 or something like that. In other words, produced a performance to justify his Tour performance by having somehow blood doped.

Much of the confusion from the original quote stems from the use of phrase "the values," as opposed to just "values." Again, it's a point that I wish Shane had followed up at the time, or that the interview had been edited for more clarity.

As for why it was "not possible on the day" to have those blood tests done by a NADO, I can only, at this point, assume logistical difficulties. I've no reason to suspect anything conspiratorial, otherwise why would have Swart even mentioned it to Shane Stokes in the first place, especially when it was he, Swart, who volunteered the info to begin with?

FWIW, I hadn't even realized that Swart had an account here dating back several years, and had already posted in the past.


Jeroen, if you're still reading, feel free to chime in.

This is an important clarification. I would also assume some bureaucratic hurdle for why testing on the day the data was collected was unavailable. Without the proper collection agency, I don't think many would trust data analyzed by the lab of the experimenters, so reverting back to the closest ADAMS value would be the next best option. I have also found Dr. Swart to be responsive, especially if approached in a cordial manner.

 

[thehog]

Re:

the twitter feeds of burnley and swart are goldmines.

I liked this one from Mark Burnley.
It's an exercise in critical thinking. Pointed out that the BMI on the fax is false, he responds:

Mark Burnley ‏@DrMarkBurnley 8. Dez.
@EwonSprokler @JeroenSwart @BySpoke @maximus_hoggus so there's a rounding error on a fax. BMI means nothing to athletes anyway.

Mark Burnley ‏@DrMarkBurnley 8. Dez.
@EwonSprokler @JeroenSwart @BySpoke @maximus_hoggus still no reason to doubt the data. Policy might be to round down BMI. Useless anyway.

Ewon Zeilstra ‏@EwonSprokler 8. Dez.
@DrMarkBurnley @JeroenSwart @BySpoke @maximus_hoggus either that or his weight was wrong.

Mark Burnley ‏@DrMarkBurnley 8. Dez.
@EwonSprokler @JeroenSwart @BySpoke @maximus_hoggus spoiler: sports physiologists know how to use weighing scales.


Or this one from Swart, redefining "way to miss the point":

BySpoke ‏@BySpoke 7. Dez.
@jeroenswart @drmarkburnley @ewonsprokler There are dissimilarities between the two documents. Seems to me it is legitimate to question why.

Jeroen Swart ‏@JeroenSwart 7. Dez.
@BySpoke @DrMarkBurnley @EwonSprokler ok. I have confirmed that the alterations were made by Esquire to highlight certain sections.

Being limited to 140 characters is always fraught with problems.

However the responses are a little odd because they are both making assumptions on the BMI and the scales. It also contradicts the caveat they provided in the GSK report;

*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.

Also makes you wonder what was on the other 4-5 pages under the top sheet of the fax