The Froome Files, test data only thread

[gillan1969]

or one for the scientists...and assuming you know your beauty product advertsing

if say an anti-ageing creme (let's say Nivea) told you that 100% of humans in a trial said they looked 10 years younger afer using it for a week and the small print at the bottom of the screen said "sample size 1 - Mrs B. Nivea"


what might that tell us about the 'product' ?

 

[thehog]

or one for the scientists...and assuming you know your beauty product advertsing

if say an anti-ageing creme (let's say Nivea) told you that 100% of humans in a trial said they looked 10 years younger afer using it for a week and the small print at the bottom of the screen said "sample size 1 - Mrs B. Nivea"


what might that tell us about the 'product' ?

That would be false advertising, it wouldn't pass.

However more recently Coca-Cola was caught minpulating research to make dubious claims about its drinks.

I don't understand this proposition that acedemia is beyond corruption or "influence". Humans by their very nature are corruptible. Whether in banking, acedemia or otherwise. It happens.

09 Oct 2015

The drinks company, a major sponsor of the Olympics, the Fifa World Cup and the Rugby World Cup, is said to have financial links to more than a dozen British scientists, including government health advisers, who cast doubt on link between sugary drinks and obesity.

It spent £4.86 million setting up the European Hydration Institute (EHI) — a research foundation promoting hydration - which has recommended that people consume sports and soft drinks, according to The Times.

The newspaper claimed that Ron Maughan, chairman of the EHI's scientific advisory board, was an emeritus professor of sport science at Loughborough University, which received almost £1 million from Coca-Cola while he provided nutritional advice to leading sports bodies.


Prof Maughan, who has advised UK Athletics and the Football Association, is said to have acted as a consultant for Coca-Cola and other drinks companies.

It was also alleged that Coke has provided financial support, sponsorship or research funding to organisations including UKActive, the British Nutrition Foundation, the University of Hull, Homerton University Hospital, the National Obesity Forum, the British Dietetic Association, Obesity Week 2013 and the UK Association for the Study of Obesity.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/retailandconsumer/11920984/Coca-Cola-spends-millions-on-research-to-prove-that-fizzy-drinks-dont-make-you-fat.html

 

[sniper]

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.)

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.

and it's a valid point.

conflicts of interest are inherent to presentday sports science, with Swart, Bermon, Catlin, and a whole bunch of charlatans selling their antidoping expertise to athletes.

acoggan (correct me if wrong) seems under the impression that academia/science is an independent organism, incorruptable.
and it should be that, of course. but it isn't. sports science is one of the best cases in point.

edit: i see theHog just made the very same point parallel to this post.
let me quote it for relevance:

I don't understand this proposition that acedemia is beyond corruption or "influence". Humans by their very nature are corruptible. Whether in banking, acedemia or otherwise. It happens.

exactly.

 

[acoggan]

Re: Re:

acoggan (correct me if wrong) seems under the impression that academia/science is an independent organism, incorruptable.

No, my original point is that The Carrot's suggestion that Brailsford could see to it that Swart "would never work again" is laughable. So, too, is thehog's attempt to paint the University of Cape Town as some sort of backwater that could be readily influenced (either positively or negatively) by, e.g., Team Sky.

My secondary point is that takes a lot more financial resources than available in all of pro cycling put together to significantly sway an entire field of science. For example, even the NFL, with billions at its disposal, has only been able to blunt, and not stop, the attention being directed at CTE.

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

acoggan (correct me if wrong) seems under the impression that academia/science is an independent organism, incorruptable.

No, my original point is that The Carrot's suggestion that Brailsford could see to it that Swart "would never work again" is laughable. So, too, is thehog's attempt to paint the University of Cape Town as some sort of backwater that could be readily influenced (either positively or negatively) by, e.g., Team Sky.

My secondary point is that takes a lot more financial resources than available in all of pro cycling put together to significantly sway an entire field of science. For example, even the NFL, with billions at its disposal, has only been able to blunt, and not stop, the attention being directed at CTE.

I don't agree with Carrot that Brailsford paid off anyone at UCT. However I checked Carrot's posts and no where is he saying that Braisford or Sky or anyone else is attempting to "sway an entire field of science". I'm not sure how you have leaped to that position when it hasn't been stated.

To my earlier point; its possible they could have been "influence', certainly by releasing the Esquire article prior to the completion of the peer reviewed study has lead to some compromised comments - "he just lost fat" statement by Swart being one.

Brailsford himself in some respects has made comment and whether inadvertently or with intent could have induced a form of compromise by referencing the EIS / GSK arrangement, although I don't see much in it.

Chris felt he wanted to do the physiological testing and of course the important thing about that was that it was going to be independently done. They did it with the GSK guys. I know the [GSK] guys from the EIS [English Institute of Sport], they’re a good bunch of guys.

If the study preceded the Esquire article it might have removed some of these doubts.

 

[sniper]

and whatever happened to the henao study?
in what stage of the reviewing process would it be by now?
strange.
I thought an English university was involved there. Was it Leicester?
I loved how Sky sent Oliver Cookson of all people along with Henao when he went to Colombia to undergo testing for that study.
Sky pretty much making a mockery of present day sports science.

 

[The Hitch]

Re: Re:

acoggan (correct me if wrong) seems under the impression that academia/science is an independent organism, incorruptable.

No, my original point is that The Carrot's suggestion that Brailsford could see to it that Swart "would never work again" is laughable. So, too, is thehog's attempt to paint the University of Cape Town as some sort of backwater that could be readily influenced (either positively or negatively) by, e.g., Team Sky.

Meanwhile, Sky claim that the entire continent of Europe is a scientific and medical backwater, where no one has ever heard of Bilharzia. So much so that Froome has to fly to a special clinic all the way in South Africa to get advice, because there is not a single hospital in the entire northern hemisphere which has that knowledge.

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

acoggan (correct me if wrong) seems under the impression that academia/science is an independent organism, incorruptable.

No, my original point is that The Carrot's suggestion that Brailsford could see to it that Swart "would never work again" is laughable. So, too, is thehog's attempt to paint the University of Cape Town as some sort of backwater that could be readily influenced (either positively or negatively) by, e.g., Team Sky.

Meanwhile, Sky claim that the entire continent of Europe is a scientific and medical backwater, where no one has ever heard of Bilharzia. So much so that Froome has to fly to a special clinic all the way in South Africa to get advice, because there is not a single hospital in the entire northern hemisphere which has that knowledge.

I think a trip to London's Hospital for Tropical Diseases would have sufficed.
Good news is, at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine people are doing ongoing research on bilharzia. I guess Froome can still go there to support the science by presenting his curious case.

On the other hand, why go to London if you can go here :
http://www.cttm-kenya.com/index.html

Love this one from the Kimmage interview:

Michelle Cound: "Because when I was looking up the Bilharzia things, you emailed Usher and asked him about somewhere you could get your Bilharzia tested around this area, so . . ."

a. So Michelle was looking up 'the Bilharzia things'. The same way she went looking for the missing 2007 test data I reckon?
b. The respected Dr. Usher didn't think of sending Froome to London? Oh well.

But back to Swart's weight loss hypothesis. Seems Riis had cracked that formula back in 1997 already:
https://twitter.com/oufeh/status/680086406476247040

 

[red_flanders]

I don't understand this proposition that acedemia is beyond corruption or "influence". Humans by their very nature are corruptible. Whether in banking, acedemia or otherwise. It happens.

Do you understand that throwing around vague comments and discussions about the nature of corruption in the context of this thread, without any specific evidence of such in this case is illogical, distasteful and really kind of dumb? No one argues that humans are corruptible. Entirely meaningless to bring it up. Is anyone saying academia is "beyond corruption or influence"? If they did I missed it.

Swart, by his own public statements seems biased. I see no evidence that this bias was bought or paid for, much less any evidence of a particular person or group doing it. My guess would be that his bias is nationalistic in nature but I really have no idea.

You're dancing around, throwing out words like "corruption" without making any specific accusations, but smearing people by using that kind of terminology. Not sure what you get out of this game, but it's the lowest kind of argumentation. Weak sauce.

 

[sniper]

I don't understand this proposition that acedemia is beyond corruption or "influence". Humans by their very nature are corruptible. Whether in banking, acedemia or otherwise. It happens.

Do you understand that throwing around vague comments and discussions about the nature of corruption in the context of this thread, without any specific evidence of such in this case is illogical, distasteful and really kind of dumb? No one argues that humans are corruptible. Entirely meaningless to bring it up. Is anyone saying academia is "beyond corruption or influence"? If they did I missed it.

Swart, by his own public statements seems biased. I see no evidence that this bias was bought or paid for, much less any evidence of a particular person or group doing it. My guess would be that his bias is nationalistic in nature but I really have no idea.

You're dancing around, throwing out words like "corruption" without making any specific accusations, but smearing people by using that kind of terminology. Not sure what you get out of this game, but it's the lowest kind of argumentation. Weak sauce.

I think you missed the part of the discussion where acoggan implied that Sky couldnt exert any influence on the University of Cape Town.
Which is where the Hog's comments about corruption came into play.
After all, acoggan's implication would be true only in some parallel universe where universities and scientists are incorruptable. Imo hog's comment was justified in the context of the discussion.

As for Swart, i could be wrong but I think he's Dutch. (e.g. here it says he's Dutch:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/cycling/chris-froome/12033018/Chris-Froome-I-know-I-wont-convince-everyone-but-I-want-to-help-rebuild-trust-in-the-sport-that-I-love.html)
That doesn't mean semi-nationalistic sentiments couldnt play a role of course, as he seems to have been in SA for quite some time.

 

[red_flanders]

I don't understand this proposition that acedemia is beyond corruption or "influence". Humans by their very nature are corruptible. Whether in banking, acedemia or otherwise. It happens.

Do you understand that throwing around vague comments and discussions about the nature of corruption in the context of this thread, without any specific evidence of such in this case is illogical, distasteful and really kind of dumb? No one argues that humans are corruptible. Entirely meaningless to bring it up. Is anyone saying academia is "beyond corruption or influence"? If they did I missed it.

Swart, by his own public statements seems biased. I see no evidence that this bias was bought or paid for, much less any evidence of a particular person or group doing it. My guess would be that his bias is nationalistic in nature but I really have no idea.

You're dancing around, throwing out words like "corruption" without making any specific accusations, but smearing people by using that kind of terminology. Not sure what you get out of this game, but it's the lowest kind of argumentation. Weak sauce.

I think you missed the part of the discussion where acoggan implied that Sky couldnt exert any influence on the University of Cape Town.
Which is where the Hog's comments about corruption came into play.
After all, acoggan's implication would be true only in some parallel universe where universities and scientists are incorruptable. Imo hog's comment was justified in the context of the discussion.

As for Swart, i could be wrong but I think he's Dutch. (e.g. here it says he's Dutch:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/cycling/chris-froome/12033018/Chris-Froome-I-know-I-wont-convince-everyone-but-I-want-to-help-rebuild-trust-in-the-sport-that-I-love.html)
That doesn't mean semi-nationalistic sentiments couldnt play a role of course, as he seems to have been in SA for quite some time.

Is there any evidence for Sky influencing the University? I didn't think so.

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

sniper
But back to Swart's weight loss hypothesis. Seems Riis had cracked that formula back in 1997 already:
https://twitter.com/oufeh/status/680086406476247040

That article on Riis is really very good. Doping aside its a straight up explanation on how it's done. Makes you wonder why Sky always dampen their numbers. Methodic Preparations is Marginal Gains. Froome also is almost a template for Riis, height and weight.

Fascinating read, certainly shows Sky are doing nothing new.

The weight is everything Bjarne Riis is moving his 72 kg. a bit in the chair, and turns the coffee cup a bit. Before the start of the tour he has to get rid of two kg. - and during the race one more kg has to go. Two three kilos is the difference between winning the Tour and finishing way back. "When it goes up hill, the weight means almost everything" Bjarne Riis says. This became clear to him when he started his work with Cecchini in 1992. Cecchini himself has in an interview given a very illustrative example of what the weight loss of Bjarne Riis has meant for his career. He compared Bjarne Riis with Indurain. The big guy from Spain could produce 55o watts when he was working on the bike just below the acid limit. Riis could only produce 480 watts. But what settled it all in the mountains was the relation between watts and the weight. Here Indurains engine was able to pull 6.8 watts per kilo (because of his weight of 79 kg). Bjarne Riis was only weighing 69 kg and had therefore 7.0 watts per kilo...0.2 watts more...

Five years ago Bjarne Riis was weighing 76 kg, which mean that he would only be able to produce 6.0 watts per kilo - this made him too heavy on the steepest mountains to keep up. Today he's able to keep up with the most specialized mountain riders, and has definitively made it clear, that danes can both ride on flat roads as well as in steep mountains. But the weight has to be OK for the prologue on the 5th of July in Rouen. With speed approx. 50 km/h important seconds can be saved by small corrections in positioning on the cycle etc. The experiments has until now resulted in an order on a 400.000kr. bike (=60.000-65000 US$) to be used on the single start stages. He would like to finally also win a single start in the Tour.

Then Riis begins to tell me about his methodic preparations, which is carefully planned in cooperation with his coach, medic, and personal advisor Luigi Cecchini, so the form can be at it's peak in the middle of the french summer. "After a short winterbreak, where the body was allowed to restore, I already in december went for 2 or 3 hour rides in a calm pace", he explains. In january and february he started on intervaltraining - eg. rode one hour with a pulse of 160-170, then two hours with a pulse of 150, and then perhaps another hour with yet another pulse. And since march the daily program has consisted of interval training combined with running. The purpose of the training is to move the acid limit. This demands an explanation: Everybody is equipped with an "aerobic engine", where the muscles are working on oxygen, and an "anaerobic engine", where the muscles are working without oxygen, but by leaking milkacid - a waste product that's kept in the muscles and in the end causes the muscle fibers not to be able to contract. The rider with the highest acid limit, is therefore able to use the "anaerobic engine" more efficiently and ride faster without the muscles being unable to contract.

The acid limit must me improved from down and up Many riders and coaches think that you during practice should try to pull up the acid limit - by training above it. Bjarne Riis and Luigi Cecchini are working after a whole different concept. That you should push it up - by training just on the limit or below it. The art is to find the edge, where you slowly build up the form - instead of training above it, and thus breaking it down. "That's why I choose not to be active in all the races. A lot of people is eg. wondering why I can't keep up with the top riders, when there's eg. a race in march. The explanation is, that I can feel that I've reached the acid limit, and therefore choose not to follow the front riders - instead of going on anyway. Many riders are riding too fast in the first races. When they get home, they're totally devastated. Next day they can't get their pulse up during practice. Several days goes by, before they are able to train again in a normal way. Then they sign up for another race - and ruins their form yet another time. I often try to save some strength, and make sure that I don't enter the red danger area. That's why, I only need one day to restore, before being able to train normally again and follow my program after a race. It's very much a matter of using your head. There's no art in training hard, but it's very hard to train in a correct way".

Computer controlled training program The most important tool in the very complex training program is a very expensive and advanced computer system called "SRM Power Control". The computer is mounted in the frame near the pedals on the bike of Bjarne Riis, with a display on the steer, showing eg. speed, distance,pedal-RPM, pulse, and how much energy - measured in watts -he's producing, when he's moving the pedals. When Bjarne Riis comes home from cycling or a run, he puts all the registered data into a computer, and analyzes them with Cecchini. The results is especially used to fine adjust the training. Should there be more intervals in the training? Or maybe harder? They also serve special purposes. Riis can eg. cycle up a hill three or four times in different gears - and the computer is then able to tell, which gear was the most economical. It is especially the pulse and the energy use in watts, which gives him a clear signal on how good his form is, and how far he is in his preparations. "I can give you an example" Bjarne Riis says: "In the beginning of december I couldn't produce more than 300-320 watts, when I was at the acid limit. In february I've maybe reached a level of 400 watts. And now I climb to approx. 500 watt where I plan to be before the start of the Tour de France". Right now the computer shows me, that I'm able to produce more watts than on the same time last year. It's not only my own feeling... the computer tells the same".

http://autobus.cyclingnews.com/results/archives/may97/8_5.html

 

[thehog]

I don't understand this proposition that acedemia is beyond corruption or "influence". Humans by their very nature are corruptible. Whether in banking, acedemia or otherwise. It happens.

Do you understand that throwing around vague comments and discussions about the nature of corruption in the context of this thread, without any specific evidence of such in this case is illogical, distasteful and really kind of dumb? No one argues that humans are corruptible. Entirely meaningless to bring it up. Is anyone saying academia is "beyond corruption or influence"? If they did I missed it.

Swart, by his own public statements seems biased. I see no evidence that this bias was bought or paid for, much less any evidence of a particular person or group doing it. My guess would be that his bias is nationalistic in nature but I really have no idea.

You're dancing around, throwing out words like "corruption" without making any specific accusations, but smearing people by using that kind of terminology. Not sure what you get out of this game, but it's the lowest kind of argumentation. Weak sauce.

I think you misread my posts.

100% agree, I see no evidence of Sky, Brailsford or anyone influencing the university, which is what I stated. I see Swart somewhat biased and influenced by the situation, yes.

 

[sniper]

I don't understand this proposition that acedemia is beyond corruption or "influence". Humans by their very nature are corruptible. Whether in banking, acedemia or otherwise. It happens.

Do you understand that throwing around vague comments and discussions about the nature of corruption in the context of this thread, without any specific evidence of such in this case is illogical, distasteful and really kind of dumb? No one argues that humans are corruptible. Entirely meaningless to bring it up. Is anyone saying academia is "beyond corruption or influence"? If they did I missed it.

Swart, by his own public statements seems biased. I see no evidence that this bias was bought or paid for, much less any evidence of a particular person or group doing it. My guess would be that his bias is nationalistic in nature but I really have no idea.

You're dancing around, throwing out words like "corruption" without making any specific accusations, but smearing people by using that kind of terminology. Not sure what you get out of this game, but it's the lowest kind of argumentation. Weak sauce.

I think you missed the part of the discussion where acoggan implied that Sky couldnt exert any influence on the University of Cape Town.
Which is where the Hog's comments about corruption came into play.
After all, acoggan's implication would be true only in some parallel universe where universities and scientists are incorruptable. Imo hog's comment was justified in the context of the discussion.

As for Swart, i could be wrong but I think he's Dutch. (e.g. here it says he's Dutch:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/cycling/chris-froome/12033018/Chris-Froome-I-know-I-wont-convince-everyone-but-I-want-to-help-rebuild-trust-in-the-sport-that-I-love.html)
That doesn't mean semi-nationalistic sentiments couldnt play a role of course, as he seems to have been in SA for quite some time.

Is there any evidence for Sky influencing the University? I didn't think so.

you're asking the wrong question.
is there any evidence they couldnt?
cuz that's what some posters were implying, that Sky could never influence the university of Cape Town.

 

[arthurvandelay]

Re: Re:Science and Coggan

acoggan (correct me if wrong) seems under the impression that academia/science is an independent organism, incorruptable.

I have tremendous respect for Dr. Coggan, he truly respects the need for rigorously structured research. I had a similar mentor in medical school who was very focused on applying such rigor in the bench science that we did.

Science that is done sloppily (or worse: fraudently !) is toxic.

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

Froome also is almost a template for Riis, height and weight.

yeah, both 186 cm.
But Riis seems to have (much) wider shoulders. Therefore, other things being equal, you'd probably expect him to weigh a bit more than Froome.

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:Science and Coggan

acoggan (correct me if wrong) seems under the impression that academia/science is an independent organism, incorruptable.

I have tremendous respect for Dr. Coggan, he truly respects the need for rigorously structured research. I had a similar mentor in medical school who was very focused on applying such rigor in the bench science that we did.

Science that is done sloppily (or worse: fraudently !) is toxic.

agreed on all accounts.

i think the point to bear in mind here is that sports science didn't tell us Lance doped.
on the contrary, sports science tried to tell us he was clean.

common sense vs. sports science
1-0

people like Olaf Schumacher, Vrijman, Stephane Bermon, Catlin (to a lesser extent, I guess), Martial Saugy, and now Swart/Burnley.
There are many other examples, e.g. the scientist who exonerated Erik Dekker in 2000 when he had too high hematocrit. Dekker later admitted to EPO abuse, and the scientist was forced to publicly admit he hadn't done his job properly.

Some more than others, but in the end they're all scientists helping to cover up doping. There's no other way to put it.
I'm not sure if (and if so, why) any upright scientist/academic would sympathize with these people.

 

[thehog]

Coyle believes that his original conclusions remain valid. He wrote:

“Since publication of the 2005 paper, there have been several reports of champion athletes displaying improved efficiency of movement. The world record holder in the women’s marathon, Paula Radcliffe, displayed a remarkable 15% improvement in running economy between 1992 and 2003.”

Context is important; is the testing to record potential improvement or a method to discover doping or not doping? It is the former.

However Froome as distinct from Armstrong has a career long bio-passport of data to utilise and show his possible cleaness. Hopefully it is released with the full study.

 

[blackcat]

Coyle believes that his original conclusions remain valid. He wrote:

“Since publication of the 2005 paper, there have been several reports of champion athletes displaying improved efficiency of movement. The world record holder in the women’s marathon, Paula Radcliffe, displayed a remarkable 15% improvement in running economy between 1992 and 2003.”

Context is important; is the testing to record potential improvement or a method to discover doping or not doping? It is the former.

However Froome as distinct from Armstrong has a career long bio-passport of data to utilise and show his possible cleaness. Hopefully it is released with the full study.

lol Radcliffe.

that is a double banger.

Did he realise he just poison-pilled[sic] his own justification...

 

[thehog]

Coyle believes that his original conclusions remain valid. He wrote:

“Since publication of the 2005 paper, there have been several reports of champion athletes displaying improved efficiency of movement. The world record holder in the women’s marathon, Paula Radcliffe, displayed a remarkable 15% improvement in running economy between 1992 and 2003.”

Context is important; is the testing to record potential improvement or a method to discover doping or not doping? It is the former.

However Froome as distinct from Armstrong has a career long bio-passport of data to utilise and show his possible cleaness. Hopefully it is released with the full study.

lol Radcliffe.

that is a double banger.

Did he realise he just poison-pilled[sic] his own justification...

The Radcliffe "Running Economy" study is a interesting piece of work, it's cites Coyle no less. And of course it was reviewed by the Univeristy of Cape Town.

Small world

https://www.exeter.ac.uk/media/universityofexeter/internationalexeter/documents/iss/paula_ijssc_paper.pdf

 

[red_flanders]

I don't understand this proposition that acedemia is beyond corruption or "influence". Humans by their very nature are corruptible. Whether in banking, acedemia or otherwise. It happens.

Do you understand that throwing around vague comments and discussions about the nature of corruption in the context of this thread, without any specific evidence of such in this case is illogical, distasteful and really kind of dumb? No one argues that humans are corruptible. Entirely meaningless to bring it up. Is anyone saying academia is "beyond corruption or influence"? If they did I missed it.

Swart, by his own public statements seems biased. I see no evidence that this bias was bought or paid for, much less any evidence of a particular person or group doing it. My guess would be that his bias is nationalistic in nature but I really have no idea.

You're dancing around, throwing out words like "corruption" without making any specific accusations, but smearing people by using that kind of terminology. Not sure what you get out of this game, but it's the lowest kind of argumentation. Weak sauce.

I think you misread my posts.

100% agree, I see no evidence of Sky, Brailsford or anyone influencing the university, which is what I stated. I see Swart somewhat biased and influenced by the situation, yes.

I don't think you addressed anything I said. I think I understand perfectly.

 

[TourOfSardinia]

Small world

Incredible research! And on Xmas day.
- after the 6mnth ban - I salute thehog2

 

[sniper]

Small world

Incredible research! And on Xmas day.
- after the 6mnth ban - I salute thehog2

thehog, who was the guy who so ferociously defended that 'running economy' study on twitter?
remember?

 

[sniper]

lol!
it was Marc Burnley.

couldnt make this stuff up!

 

[sniper]

to be sure, Burnley is the guy who was team tagging with Swart in the post-Esquire discussion on twitter.
using ludicrous arguments, insulting people, the whole array of strawmen.
at times what he said seemed to suggest he's rather close to Swart, e.g. when he said Swart had received the 2007 data 'at eleventh hour'.

On some blog online, you'll find Burnley on the record saying how he was 'angry' at Lance after hearing he doped in 2012. lol.
All in the context of the Coyle article, which some wanted to see retracted. Burnley (like Andrew Coggan) is on the board of the JAP, the journal that published Coyle's article in 2005.

Swart and Andrew Bosch are in the same Department at the uni of CT by the way.

A small world of psuedo-scientists bigging each other up.