The Froome Files, test data only thread

[acoggan]

Re: Re:

Exactly this, you don't burn bridges in this game, especially with one of the most powerful men in sport who has Murdoch covering his back. This is not a criticism of those who did the test by the way. You might be at the Univeristy of Capetown now but you might want to work somewhere else one day.

You have absolutely no clue how academia works, do you?

I know how Universities work, and they need money, lots of it. Association with the right people helps also, it's one of the reasons they hand out honorary degrees. So my point stands, they ain't rocking the boat.

Like I said, you have absolutely no clue how academia works.

To be specific: whether or not Swart sucks up to or offends Dave Brailsford will have absolutely zero impact upon either his current employment, his future employment in academia, or The University of Cape Town's bottom line.

 

[acoggan]

Re: Re:

I think more to the point; a lowly ranked institute in South Africa suburbia, in search of funding, is thrust onto the world stage

<snort>

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

Exactly this, you don't burn bridges in this game, especially with one of the most powerful men in sport who has Murdoch covering his back. This is not a criticism of those who did the test by the way. You might be at the Univeristy of Capetown now but you might want to work somewhere else one day.

You have absolutely no clue how academia works, do you?

I know how Universities work, and they need money, lots of it. Association with the right people helps also, it's one of the reasons they hand out honorary degrees. So my point stands, they ain't rocking the boat.

University's do rely heavily on outside income. Full fee paying student from overseas has been one push, naming facilities after corporations is another. To accept research on a no fee basis to receive future investment has been another method. As various governments tighten their belts on education spending, institutions look for all sorts of ways and methods to raise funding.

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

funny how all roads seem to lead to Lausanne these days.

https://twitter.com/JeroenSwart/status/673830299034370048

Burnley is still brilliant..."there we have it"...the assumption is that all published data is good data..

the gap within that man's hat grows

case closed...nothing to see here

yeah i remember that one:
https://twitter.com/DrMarkBurnley/status/673923921033494530

indeed thats the logic of a goldfish as dearwiggo eloquently put it on twitter.
or just totally disingenuous.
whether dumb as a goldfish or disingenuous, in either case you wonder why a world-renowned independent thinker like Swart would tag team with him.

An interesting, if not rather obvious, chapter from an 'academic' book entitled Tobacco industry manipulation of research'. Check the 4 strategies vs Sky/Froome

This chapter describes the strategies that the
tobacco industry has used to influence the design,
conduct and publication of scientific research on
second‑hand smoke; and how the tobacco industry
used this research in attempts to influence policy.
It represents an expansion of an earlier article,
'Tobacco industry manipulation of research' by Bero
(2005).
The primary motivation of the tobacco industry
has been to generate controversy about the health
risks of its products. The industry has used several
strategies including:
1. funding and publishing research that supports
its position;
2. suppressing and criticising research that does
not support its position;
3. changing the standards for scientific research;
4. disseminating interest group data or
interpretation of risks via the lay (non‑academic)
press and directly to policymakers.
The strategies used by the tobacco industry have
remained remarkably constant since the early 1950s


1 - commission your own study
2 - psuedo-scientists
3 - well...they just make stuff up
4 - cue walsh and his nutella and esquire with weight

and to crown it all off...the strategies used by doping cuyclists have remained remarkably contant since the mid 1990s

brilliant!

 

[sniper]

So getting back to the timeline of the 2007 dataset...

May 20th - 27th - Tour of Japan
July 17th - 23rd - All African Games, 3rd in 150km race behind Impey, Algiers, Algeria (Froome stayed until 23rd according to Va Va Froome) - Results and story from the 17th - http://www.nation.sc/article.html?id=217042
July 25th - Test in Lausanne (not mentioned in either books)
August 10th 2007 - Mi-Aout en Bretagne
August 22nd - 28th - GP Tell Switzerland

So the story goes, Froome trained like a demon, arrives in Aigle, stays in Belgium from April, races in Japan, Algeria then stepped off a flight on the 23rd, two days later records Hinault like race numbers but is overweight carrying 17% bodyfat, doesn't bother to mention it in either book, keeps on racing and makes mention of these races with average performances. Truly bizarre.

Devil's advocate here ... firstly, I don't think it's that bizarre that the test wasn't mentioned in either book. Secondly, I don't find the 17% body fat figure incredible at all. It's not a ridiculously high figure even for a sportsman....and it does look consistent with the photos we see of him looking emaciated for the tour etc. He is a tall rider, so can probably carry a fair bit of adipose tissue without looking too fat.
So, why not bizarre? I don't think that when he (Walsh) was writing that the tests would have been that significant. With the weight he was carrying, although absolute power was good, power to weight wasn't much to get excited about. It's only in retrospect that the 2007 test looks interesting. I don't think the remarks from the UCI coach suggesting that he had Hinault-esque numbers had been made at that point....they certainly weren't widely broadcast. They were retrospective as well .... so perhaps the past was being seen through pink glasses...ie, the coach was making a statement with hindsight "Oh yeah, we knew he was epic all along", when he probably hadn't even thought about Froome very much until he suddenly became the best rider ever to climb on a bike.

It's a problem we all have here.... we're not seeing a narrative as it happened, we're trying to piece it together retrospectively ... it's a jigsaw, we can see the picture on the box but half of the pieces are missing.

ever heard of occam's razor? try applying it sometime.

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

Exactly this, you don't burn bridges in this game, especially with one of the most powerful men in sport who has Murdoch covering his back. This is not a criticism of those who did the test by the way. You might be at the Univeristy of Capetown now but you might want to work somewhere else one day.

You have absolutely no clue how academia works, do you?

was he saying he did?
and what bearing would it have on the thrust of the comment he made? none.
with all due respect, the arrogance of that remark is slightly misplaced considering your record.

 

[acoggan]

Re: Re:

Exactly this, you don't burn bridges in this game, especially with one of the most powerful men in sport who has Murdoch covering his back. This is not a criticism of those who did the test by the way. You might be at the Univeristy of Capetown now but you might want to work somewhere else one day.

You have absolutely no clue how academia works, do you?

was he saying he did?
and what bearing would it have on the thrust of the comment he made? none.
with all due respect, the arrogance of that remark is slightly misplaced considering your record.

Silly me for pointing out that you should have a clue as to how academia works before claiming that Brailsford's opinion of Swart means diddly-squat to the latter's future career in said field.

Of course, I don't know which is funnier: The Carrot's claim that if Swart crossed Brailsford that "he'd never work again", or thehog's description of South Africa's most widely-respected academic institution (home to, e.g., Christiaan Barnard, who performed the world's first successful heart transplant) as "a lowly ranked institute in South Africa suburbia."

 

[thehog]

UCT, ranking at #171, dropping from previous high of #141, has some work to do, particularly in postgraduate research.

http://www.topuniversities.com/universities/university-cape-town

 

[poupou]

Re: Re:

Exactly this, you don't burn bridges in this game, especially with one of the most powerful men in sport who has Murdoch covering his back. This is not a criticism of those who did the test by the way. You might be at the Univeristy of Capetown now but you might want to work somewhere else one day.

You have absolutely no clue how academia works, do you?

I know how Universities work, and they need money, lots of it. Association with the right people helps also, it's one of the reasons they hand out honorary degrees. So my point stands, they ain't rocking the boat.

Like I said, you have absolutely no clue how academia works.

To be specific: whether or not Swart sucks up to or offends Dave Brailsford will have absolutely zero impact upon either his current employment, his future employment in academia, or The University of Cape Town's bottom line.

Employement is one thing, but there is additional income or research funding.

Why did Coyle fake his Armstrong study?
Why have we seen so much scientists publishing stupidities on global warming, on petrol, on tobacco, on OGM,...

Or should we believe there is a lot of fools there too?

 

[Benotti69]

Scientists lying for money, NO WAY! That's not how it works......pull the other one

 

[acoggan]

UCT, ranking at #171, dropping from previous high of #141, has some work to do, particularly in postgraduate research.

http://www.topuniversities.com/universities/university-cape-town

<shrug>

It is still not "a lowly ranked institute in South Africa suburbia."

(BTW, I wouldn't put much stock in those ranking if I were you. It's well-known that some countries, e.g., China, attempt to manipulate them.)

 

[acoggan]

Re: Re:

Exactly this, you don't burn bridges in this game, especially with one of the most powerful men in sport who has Murdoch covering his back. This is not a criticism of those who did the test by the way. You might be at the Univeristy of Capetown now but you might want to work somewhere else one day.

You have absolutely no clue how academia works, do you?

I know how Universities work, and they need money, lots of it. Association with the right people helps also, it's one of the reasons they hand out honorary degrees. So my point stands, they ain't rocking the boat.

Like I said, you have absolutely no clue how academia works.

To be specific: whether or not Swart sucks up to or offends Dave Brailsford will have absolutely zero impact upon either his current employment, his future employment in academia, or The University of Cape Town's bottom line.

Employement is one thing, but there is additional income or research funding.

Why did Coyle fake his Armstrong study?

1. Team Sky doesn't offer grants or pay for outside testing. Swart therefore gives up nothing if he happens to offend Brailsford.

2. There is no evidence that Coyle faked anything.

 

[thehog]

UCT, ranking at #171, dropping from previous high of #141, has some work to do, particularly in postgraduate research.

http://www.topuniversities.com/universities/university-cape-town

<shrug>

It is still not "a lowly ranked institute in South Africa suburbia."

(BTW, I wouldn't put much stock in those ranking if I were you. It's well-known that some countries, e.g., China, attempt to manipulate them.)

Not entirely sure on that, there are several ranking systems, one of the earliest is actually collated in China, low and behold no Chinese institutions.

I get the sense some these quote you put are are more opinion and less fact.

The Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU) compiled by the Shanghai Jiao Tong University and now maintained by the ShanghaiRanking Consultancy, has provided annual global rankings of universities since 2003, making it the earliest of its kind. The ranking is funded by the Chinese government and its initial purpose was to measure the gap between Chinese and "world class" universities. In the 2015 Academic Ranking of World Universities there are no Chinese universities in the first 100 of 500 places.

 

[Mr.White]

So getting back to the timeline of the 2007 dataset...

May 20th - 27th - Tour of Japan
July 17th - 23rd - All African Games, 3rd in 150km race behind Impey, Algiers, Algeria (Froome stayed until 23rd according to Va Va Froome) - Results and story from the 17th - http://www.nation.sc/article.html?id=217042
July 25th - Test in Lausanne (not mentioned in either books)
August 10th 2007 - Mi-Aout en Bretagne
August 22nd - 28th - GP Tell Switzerland

So the story goes, Froome trained like a demon, arrives in Aigle, stays in Belgium from April, races in Japan, Algeria then stepped off a flight on the 23rd, two days later records Hinault like race numbers but is overweight carrying 17% bodyfat, doesn't bother to mention it in either book, keeps on racing and makes mention of these races with average performances. Truly bizarre.

Devil's advocate here ... firstly, I don't think it's that bizarre that the test wasn't mentioned in either book. Secondly, I don't find the 17% body fat figure incredible at all. It's not a ridiculously high figure even for a sportsman....and it does look consistent with the photos we see of him looking emaciated for the tour etc. He is a tall rider, so can probably carry a fair bit of adipose tissue without looking too fat.
So, why not bizarre? I don't think that when he (Walsh) was writing that the tests would have been that significant. With the weight he was carrying, although absolute power was good, power to weight wasn't much to get excited about. It's only in retrospect that the 2007 test looks interesting. I don't think the remarks from the UCI coach suggesting that he had Hinault-esque numbers had been made at that point....they certainly weren't widely broadcast. They were retrospective as well .... so perhaps the past was being seen through pink glasses...ie, the coach was making a statement with hindsight "Oh yeah, we knew he was epic all along", when he probably hadn't even thought about Froome very much until he suddenly became the best rider ever to climb on a bike.

It's a problem we all have here.... we're not seeing a narrative as it happened, we're trying to piece it together retrospectively ... it's a jigsaw, we can see the picture on the box but half of the pieces are missing.

You're not right on this. They (SKY), would of announce it (2007 tests) right after Vuelta 2011, cause they would explain Froome's breakthrough. But they didn't, that tells something...

 

[thehog]

Re:

Scientists lying for money, NO WAY! That's not how it works......pull the other one

Not sure on the dramatics but it certainly is a problem and in Switzerland;

May 20th 2015

In April the prestigious Swiss federal technology institute ETH Zurich announced it was investigating one of its professors following accusations of publication fraud. Academic misconduct is nothing new, but the Swiss have only recently taken a coherent approach to investigating it.

The ETHZ case involves a biology professor who was anonymously accused in the online forum PubPeer of having manipulated images that accompanied articles he had co-written and published. According to the French National Center for Scientific Research (CNRS), which funded some of the research, around 30 articles are involved.

On April 9, ETHZ stated that it had formed an investigative committee to evaluate the allegations published on the websites PubPeer and Retraction Watch since January 2015. Until the investigation is completed, it can’t comment on the process, a spokeswoman told swissinfo.ch. CNRS is also conducting a separate investigation.


Falsification (adapting or distorting) and fabrication (inventing) of data are two forms of research misconduct. There are many more. These range from plagiarism (using someone else’s text as your own) to false authorship (taking credit for work you haven’t done) to not declaring competing interests – such as the fact that your study is being sponsored by the company that sells the product you’re studying.

One of the biggest cases of publication fraud in Europe to date involved a German anaesthesiologist named Joachim Boldt. Following a lengthy investigation Boldt was fired from his professorship at the Klinikum Ludwigshafen and 88 of 102 reports he had published in scientific journals were withdrawn. Boldt had apparently been falsifying data as far back as 1999.

In 2009 an analysis of 21 published surveys conducted in a range of countries found that almost 2% of the scientists surveyed admitted to having fabricated, falsified or modified data or results at least once in their career, and 34% admitted to other questionable research practices.

Why would scientists risk jeopardising their careers by fabricating or falsifying research? “Like in any other area of human activity – for example, sports, where you have doping – people want to excel at what they do,” says Lausanne-based editorial manager Mirjam Curno. Much unethical behaviour has developed as a result of incentives set by funders, by institutional assessment boards and by promotion committees, according to Curno.

Researchers are tempted to engage in misconduct because they “are under immense pressure to secure funding, due to their short-term contracts, due to grants expiring on a regular basis, and because they compete for tenureship positions, which are quite few in number”.

http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/publication-misconduct-_the-swiss-science-of-investigating-fraud/41428940

 

[armchairclimber]

So getting back to the timeline of the 2007 dataset...

May 20th - 27th - Tour of Japan
July 17th - 23rd - All African Games, 3rd in 150km race behind Impey, Algiers, Algeria (Froome stayed until 23rd according to Va Va Froome) - Results and story from the 17th - http://www.nation.sc/article.html?id=217042
July 25th - Test in Lausanne (not mentioned in either books)
August 10th 2007 - Mi-Aout en Bretagne
August 22nd - 28th - GP Tell Switzerland

So the story goes, Froome trained like a demon, arrives in Aigle, stays in Belgium from April, races in Japan, Algeria then stepped off a flight on the 23rd, two days later records Hinault like race numbers but is overweight carrying 17% bodyfat, doesn't bother to mention it in either book, keeps on racing and makes mention of these races with average performances. Truly bizarre.

Devil's advocate here ... firstly, I don't think it's that bizarre that the test wasn't mentioned in either book. Secondly, I don't find the 17% body fat figure incredible at all. It's not a ridiculously high figure even for a sportsman....and it does look consistent with the photos we see of him looking emaciated for the tour etc. He is a tall rider, so can probably carry a fair bit of adipose tissue without looking too fat.
So, why not bizarre? I don't think that when he (Walsh) was writing that the tests would have been that significant. With the weight he was carrying, although absolute power was good, power to weight wasn't much to get excited about. It's only in retrospect that the 2007 test looks interesting. I don't think the remarks from the UCI coach suggesting that he had Hinault-esque numbers had been made at that point....they certainly weren't widely broadcast. They were retrospective as well .... so perhaps the past was being seen through pink glasses...ie, the coach was making a statement with hindsight "Oh yeah, we knew he was epic all along", when he probably hadn't even thought about Froome very much until he suddenly became the best rider ever to climb on a bike.

It's a problem we all have here.... we're not seeing a narrative as it happened, we're trying to piece it together retrospectively ... it's a jigsaw, we can see the picture on the box but half of the pieces are missing.

You're not right on this. They (SKY), would of announce it (2007 tests) right after Vuelta 2011, cause they would explain Froome's breakthrough. But they didn't, that tells something...

Well, no they wouldn't necessarily because those 2007 test results would prove nothing... they certainly wouldn't explain Froome's rapid improvement in 2011. Those 2007 test results certainly don't prove a whole lot even given the context of the August 2015 results .... they certainly don't offer any evidence that Froome is clean.

 

[acoggan]

UCT, ranking at #171, dropping from previous high of #141, has some work to do, particularly in postgraduate research.

http://www.topuniversities.com/universities/university-cape-town

<shrug>

It is still not "a lowly ranked institute in South Africa suburbia."

(BTW, I wouldn't put much stock in those ranking if I were you. It's well-known that some countries, e.g., China, attempt to manipulate them.)

Not entirely sure on that, there are several ranking systems, one of the earliest is actually collated in China, low and behold no Chinese institutions.

I get the sense some these quote you put are are more opinion and less fact.

The Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU) compiled by the Shanghai Jiao Tong University and now maintained by the ShanghaiRanking Consultancy, has provided annual global rankings of universities since 2003, making it the earliest of its kind. The ranking is funded by the Chinese government and its initial purpose was to measure the gap between Chinese and "world class" universities. In the 2015 Academic Ranking of World Universities there are no Chinese universities in the first 100 of 500 places.

It's not just China, and it's not just those rankings. For example, there's a well-known case right here in Missouri wherein a business school deliberately inflated certain metrics in order to skew their score.

To try to bring it back to the topic at hand: the University of Cape Town is well-known in the academic community, at least/especially in the field of sports medicine, thanks in large part to their iconoclastic Dr. Tim Noakes. To suggest that they are a little-known suburban community college is silly, just as it is silly to suggest that cozying up to Brailsford will somehow enhance that reputation and/or put money in their pocket.

 

[thehog]

So in short academic institutions will happily manipulate their rankings which of course then would lead them to manipulate their research.

With the exception of #171st ranked University of Cape Town

 

[thehog]

So getting back to the timeline of the 2007 dataset...

May 20th - 27th - Tour of Japan
July 17th - 23rd - All African Games, 3rd in 150km race behind Impey, Algiers, Algeria (Froome stayed until 23rd according to Va Va Froome) - Results and story from the 17th - http://www.nation.sc/article.html?id=217042
July 25th - Test in Lausanne (not mentioned in either books)
August 10th 2007 - Mi-Aout en Bretagne
August 22nd - 28th - GP Tell Switzerland

So the story goes, Froome trained like a demon, arrives in Aigle, stays in Belgium from April, races in Japan, Algeria then stepped off a flight on the 23rd, two days later records Hinault like race numbers but is overweight carrying 17% bodyfat, doesn't bother to mention it in either book, keeps on racing and makes mention of these races with average performances. Truly bizarre.

Devil's advocate here ... firstly, I don't think it's that bizarre that the test wasn't mentioned in either book. Secondly, I don't find the 17% body fat figure incredible at all. It's not a ridiculously high figure even for a sportsman....and it does look consistent with the photos we see of him looking emaciated for the tour etc. He is a tall rider, so can probably carry a fair bit of adipose tissue without looking too fat.
So, why not bizarre? I don't think that when he (Walsh) was writing that the tests would have been that significant. With the weight he was carrying, although absolute power was good, power to weight wasn't much to get excited about. It's only in retrospect that the 2007 test looks interesting. I don't think the remarks from the UCI coach suggesting that he had Hinault-esque numbers had been made at that point....they certainly weren't widely broadcast. They were retrospective as well .... so perhaps the past was being seen through pink glasses...ie, the coach was making a statement with hindsight "Oh yeah, we knew he was epic all along", when he probably hadn't even thought about Froome very much until he suddenly became the best rider ever to climb on a bike.

It's a problem we all have here.... we're not seeing a narrative as it happened, we're trying to piece it together retrospectively ... it's a jigsaw, we can see the picture on the box but half of the pieces are missing.

You're not right on this. They (SKY), would of announce it (2007 tests) right after Vuelta 2011, cause they would explain Froome's breakthrough. But they didn't, that tells something...

Well, no they wouldn't necessarily because those 2007 test results would prove nothing... they certainly wouldn't explain Froome's rapid improvement in 2011. Those 2007 test results certainly don't prove a whole lot even given the context of the August 2015 results .... they certainly don't offer any evidence that Froome is clean.

That is not true. Without the 2015 results, 2007 on face value told everything we needed to know. It would have made Froome's story much more believable. He didn't need 2015 to show he had a big engine and was carrying a large amount of body fat when he was younger. Even Walsh could have presented this story. His stellar race results coupled with the 2007 data.

There's a reason why this results have just appeared and it's not because of great detective work....

 

[gillan1969]

Re: Re:

[quote="
1. Team Sky doesn't offer grants or pay for outside testing. Swart therefore gives up nothing if he happens to offend Brailsford.

2. There is no evidence that Coyle faked anything.[/quote]

BUT coogan

that's not the point...see point 4 of tobacco stratgey...the hapless swart now talking about issues outwith his own data set....

media manipulators - 1
scientist - 0

 

[djpbaltimore]

Re: Re:

BUT coogan

that's not the point...see point 4 of tobacco stratgey...the hapless swart now talking about issues outwith his own data set....

media manipulators - 1
scientist - 0

The problem with your tobacco analogy is that the froome example fails the first point. Unless you can supply evidence that the study was funded by froome or sky?

As for the talk about outside influence in academia, giving money gets your name on buildings, it doesn't give veto power on academic appointments. I can corroborate what acoggan has said above about this subject. The discussion is farfetched and based on not understanding of how the system works.

 

[acoggan]

Re: Re:

[quote="
1. Team Sky doesn't offer grants or pay for outside testing. Swart therefore gives up nothing if he happens to offend Brailsford.

BUT coogan

that's not the point...[/quote]

Maybe not your point, but it is The Carrot's and thehog's.

(Then again, I'm not convinced the latter believes a single thing he writes, but simply likes to try to twist conversations around. At least, that's the only explanation I can come up with for his frequent ludicrous claims and self-contradictions.)

 

[acoggan]

Re: Re:

As for the talk about outside influence in academia, giving money gets your name on buildings, it doesn't give veto power on academic appointments.

On top of which, pro cycling (or pro cyclists) is far too poor to exert the nefarious influence that is being proposed. Heck, the entire yearly budget for, e.g., Team Sky barely equals a decent-sized grant in a field like medicine or physics.

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

[quote="
1. Team Sky doesn't offer grants or pay for outside testing. Swart therefore gives up nothing if he happens to offend Brailsford.

BUT coogan

that's not the point...

Maybe not your point, but it is The Carrot's and thehog's.

(Then again, I'm not convinced the latter believes a single thing he writes, but simply likes to try to twist conversations around. At least, that's the only explanation I can come up with for his frequent ludicrous claims and self-contradictions.)

I've never stated that Brailsford manipulated, lent on or otherwise per Cape Town University research facility. Not at any point did I even mention Brailsford name. You made that conclusion all on your own.

My point was that it's possible that an institute in search of funding could be compromised, evidence supplied by the story of research fraud in Switzerland.

I also furnished UCT's ranking, #171, which you made a claim that the rankings are manipulated by the Chinese (with no link mind you), to discover Chinese institutions don't even fill the top 100 places out of 500.

 

[gillan1969]

Re: Re:

BUT coogan

that's not the point...see point 4 of tobacco stratgey...the hapless swart now talking about issues outwith his own data set....

media manipulators - 1
scientist - 0

The problem with your tobacco analogy is that the froome example fails the first point. Unless you can supply evidence that the study was funded by froome or sky?

As for the talk about outside influence in academia, giving money gets your name on buildings, it doesn't give veto power on academic appointments. I can corroborate what acoggan has said above about this subject. The discussion is farfetched and based on not understanding of how the system works.

you miss the point...was it a dog accused of not being empathetic towards his fellow canines who 'reached out' to the ialian academics to seek to prove that he was indeed empathetic?

I thinketh not