The Froome Files, test data only thread

[Jeroen Swart]

Re: Re:

didn't they have computers back in 2007 at the UCI u23 facility, with hard disks and all? (honest question)

All that exists because the power and heart rate date came from digital sources in a file format (in ASCII format).

The issue not whether there are computers etc. but it does appear Swart is now distancing himself from the 2007 data to the extent that its no longer included in the final summary. To why he didn't want to use it when it really was "the story" is not known to us and very strange. Performance testing on Froome in 2015 is neither here nor there, there was enough data on climbs from races and the leaked Ventoux file to know what Froome does.

The real story which is now the non story is 2007 really for the most part doesn't actually exist in the Froome story.

Nevertheless, good PR, as its made the Esquire print and online magazines with the end line "he just lost the fat", forever set in stone.

Hi Hog,

This is a classic example of the adage "Don't let the truth ruin a good story".

Despite me being utterly transparent, you've done an excellent job in the spin department here.

So let's once again get some clarity:

1) The decision to not use the 2007 data was made by us and had nothing to do with Sky, Froome or anyone involved with the team. I have clearly articulated why we decided not to use the data. After that point we would not have been entitled to access the data.

2) My mandate was to do oversee the performance testing on Froome. There was no mandate to do an investigation into the 2007 data. I am therefore at a loss as to why you feel that this was the "original" story. The 2007 data came about after the request to test him and was a side piece to the Esquire article written by Richard Moore. Perhaps you should request him to do the investigation? But twisting the facts and stating that the 2007 data WAS the story is being completely disingenuous.

3) As to the validity of the 2007 data: I see no reason why a respected scientist (Gregoire Millet) would have any reason to be complicit in falsifying any data or remaining silent if he had knowledge that there was anything untoward. That said, why don't you contact him instead of sitting on a forum casting aspersions. His email address or telephone number should be easy to find on google. Why haven't you considered contacting him and asking him to verify the data as I suggested?

 

[sniper]

just a side story? pull the other one.

"The process has also been a bit of a journey of discovery for me," said Froome. "It prompted me to seek out comparative data from tests carried out in Switzerland in 2007 during my time at the UCI World Cycling Centre. I managed to get hold of these figures for the first time in September 2015 and they are published today alongside the Human Performance Lab data for comparison.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/chris-froome-you-can-win-the-biggest-bike-races-in-the-world-clean/

 

[sniper]

Talking about 'spinning the message': Mark was just jumping the gun here?

Jeroen Swart ‏@JeroenSwart 7. Dez. 2015
@maximus_hoggus @EwonSprokler @DrMarkBurnley we've been asked by the scientists who collected that data whether we can publish it jointly.

(((Mark Burnley))) @DrMarkBurnley
@JeroenSwart @maximus_hoggus @EwonSprokler and there we have it - scientists who collected the data confident enough in it to publish.

 

[Jeroen Swart]

Re:

Talking about 'spinning the message': Mark was just jumping the gun here?

Jeroen Swart ‏@JeroenSwart 7. Dez. 2015
@maximus_hoggus @EwonSprokler @DrMarkBurnley we've been asked by the scientists who collected that data whether we can publish it jointly.

(((Mark Burnley))) @DrMarkBurnley
@JeroenSwart @maximus_hoggus @EwonSprokler and there we have it - scientists who collected the data confident enough in it to publish.

Hold on! I stated exactly that point repeatedly here on this forum the last 2 days. So how is that now spin???

And as I said, despite them asking, we made a decision subsequent to that to publish our data alone.

You're flogging the wrong horse, never mind dead ones.

 

[sniper]

You'll agree that just shouting loud that "scientists who collected the data confident enough in it to publish" doesn't say anything yet about the legitimacy of the data. That's determined in peer-review.
Mark was jumping the gun there. Spinning the convo.
"There you have it". Ehm, no, we don't.

 

[Jeroen Swart]

Re:

You'll agree that just shouting loud that "scientists who collected the data confident enough in it to publish" doesn't say anything yet about the legitimacy of the data. That's determined in peer-review.
Mark was jumping the gun there. Spinning the convo.
"There you have it". Ehm, no, we don't.

Nope. This has absolutely nothing to do with lack of confidence in the data.

It has to do with a length manuscript, data that was collected in another lab using different methods and equipment etc.

So you can flog away but it won't change the facts.

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

You'll agree that just shouting loud that "scientists who collected the data confident enough in it to publish" doesn't say anything yet about the legitimacy of the data. That's determined in peer-review.
Mark was jumping the gun there. Spinning the convo.
"There you have it". Ehm, no, we don't.

Nope. This has absolutely nothing to do with lack of confidence in the data.

It has to do with a length manuscript, data that was collected in another lab using different methods and equipment etc.

So you can flog away but it won't change the facts.

The issue though is that the "entertainment" piece in esquire did include a portion of the 2007 data along with your conclusion; "he just lost the fat, the engine was always there". The scientific journal won't include that data and most likely cannot draw the same conclusion. However the two will become one and that is somewhat irresponsible to allow one before the other without pre-validation of the 2007 data (in the manner it was collected).

Whether the 2007 data is good data a bad data is now superfluous; here we have a scientific study that first released its findings prior to the actual study being complete and then dropped a significant piece of the data that the original conclusion was drawn.

 

[Jeroen Swart]

Re: Re:

You'll agree that just shouting loud that "scientists who collected the data confident enough in it to publish" doesn't say anything yet about the legitimacy of the data. That's determined in peer-review.
Mark was jumping the gun there. Spinning the convo.
"There you have it". Ehm, no, we don't.

Nope. This has absolutely nothing to do with lack of confidence in the data.

It has to do with a length manuscript, data that was collected in another lab using different methods and equipment etc.

So you can flog away but it won't change the facts.

The issue though is that the "entertainment" piece in esquire did include a portion of the 2007 data along with your conclusion; "he just lost the fat, the engine was always there". The scientific journal won't include that data and most likely cannot draw the same conclusion. However the two will become one and that is somewhat irresponsible to allow one before the other without pre-validation of the 2007 data (in the manner it was collected).

Whether the 2007 data is good data a bad data is now superfluous; here we have a scientific study that first released its findings prior to the actual study being complete and then dropped a significant piece of the data that the original conclusion was drawn.

We covered these exact points, including the quote yesterday. Didn't we? Are we on a Merry Go Round?

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

...

The issue though is that the "entertainment" piece in esquire did include a portion of the 2007 data along with your conclusion; "he just lost the fat, the engine was always there". The scientific journal won't include that data and most likely cannot draw the same conclusion. However the two will become one and that is somewhat irresponsible to allow one before the other without pre-validation of the 2007 data (in the manner it was collected).

Whether the 2007 data is good data a bad data is now superfluous; here we have a scientific study that first released its findings prior to the actual study being complete and then dropped a significant piece of the data that the original conclusion was drawn.

good post. That second paragraph gets to the core of the issue.

Jeroen, in the Esquire piece, were you cited in your capacity as a scientist? I recall that indeed you were.

If so, then sloppy science is a nice way of putting it.

(tens of) thousands of scientists around the world make sure to check, double check, triple check their data.

But hey, this is a TdF winning cyclist, so who cares (?)

The merry go round will go round as long as you don't address the real issues.

"just a side story". lol.

 

[Jeroen Swart]

Re: Re:

...

The issue though is that the "entertainment" piece in esquire did include a portion of the 2007 data along with your conclusion; "he just lost the fat, the engine was always there". The scientific journal won't include that data and most likely cannot draw the same conclusion. However the two will become one and that is somewhat irresponsible to allow one before the other without pre-validation of the 2007 data (in the manner it was collected).

Whether the 2007 data is good data a bad data is now superfluous; here we have a scientific study that first released its findings prior to the actual study being complete and then dropped a significant piece of the data that the original conclusion was drawn.

good post.

Jeroen, in the Esquire piece, were you cited in your capacity as a scientist? I recall that indeed you were.

If so, then sloppy science is a nice way of putting it.

(tens of) thousands of scientists around the world, check, double check, triple check their data.

But hey, this is a TdF winning cyclist, so who cares (?).

Maybe you should read the start of this whole discussion instead of rehashing the same points over and over again and again.

But that seems to be the modus in particular for you and Digger. Keep repeating the same thing over and over. Eventually if you say it enough it becomes true, right?

Never debate the points as that doesn't suit your agenda.

So you'll have to excuse me if I stop responding to any of your comments Sniper.

 

[sniper]

1) They clearly didn't report to a decimal place. Yes, they should have rounded up if they left off the decimal. It's BMI. Nobody in performance sport uses BMI. It has almost no value. But ask Grégoire Millet why it was reported the way it was. I don't see this as a serious issue.

It could be a serious issue. The point is you don't know, nor do I, but it's odd that you hardly show any willingness to scrutinize it.
For instance, there is a chance (even if small) that the BMI was correct but the weight was off.
It's odd that you don't even consider that possibility.

It's also curious that you didn't even notice that the bmi was out of touch with the weight, not until people pointed it out to you on twitter, i.e. well after the publication of the esquire article.
Had you looked at the 2007 data *at all* prior to Richard interviewing you? (honest question).

You can say you had no reason to doubt the 2007 data, but that's just negligent, especially for someone who knows the history of cycling and who is involved in antidoping. The 2007 data come from the UCI, right in a period when UCI was also actively supporting Lance in his quest for an 8th TdF.
Such levels of gullibility are not helpful if the aim is to catch cheats and present insight in the true capacity of the human body.

 

[SeriousSam]

Reading along here, I'm not sure I understand all of the context. Can someone clarify whether the following is correct:

Swart et al have analysed data from Froome from 2015. Their analysis will soon be published. They did not analyse, nor have they ever seen, data from 2007, or from any point prior to Froome's transformation to world class in 2011.

The Esquire article, and the cyclingnews article discussing Froome's results, both of which have much more reach and impact with the target audience of interest to Sky and Froome than any scienific journal, emphasised the 2007 data in comparison with the 2015 data, culminating in the following punchline, supplied by Swart:

"The engine was there all along," said Swart. "He just lost the fat."

 

[gillan1969]

Re:

Reading along here, I'm not sure I understand all of the context. Can someone clarify whether the following is correct:

Swart et al have analysed data from Froome from 2015. Their analysis will soon be published. They did not analyse, nor have they ever seen, data from 2007, or from any point prior to Froome's transformation to world class in 2011.

The Esquire article, and the cyclingnews article discussing Froome's results, both of which have much more reach and impact with the target audience of interest to Sky and Froome than any scienific journal, emphasised the 2007 data in comparison with the 2015 data, culminating in the following punchline, supplied by Swart:

"The engine was there all along," said Swart. "He just lost the fat."

Jeroen

I think the issue here is that there are a number of people here (including myself) who aren't that fussed about your actual tests (although to be fair I await the publication as there may be snippets that are interesting). You are a good scientist going about your business - what will be demonstrated will be that a Tour winner can generate figures that can win the Tour (quelle surprise)...this we already know. Those figures will be 'down' on the extravagance of the epo and Lance eras...again...this we already know. This for you is job done. However, that is not Froome's story...Froome's story is 'the transformation'. The 2007 data, which remains unverified other than you providing a reference, is THE magic bullet for Froome as per the Moore sign-off and as per Moore on the Today programme on the day of its publication or as Moore put it "the really interesting bit". It legitimises a transformation.

Otherwise...well...we know Cram's quote about fish........

'They' have managed to conflate (in the mind of the esquire reading and rapha buying public) the 2007 data with your own data.

I don't think anyone on here thinks you will do anything but a good job with your subject...its the part you may be unwittingly playing in a bigger game under someone else's rules that is of issue.

 

[veganrob]

How do we know what the physiological requirements would be for a clean cyclist to win the TdF if we never had one?
If I could bench press 400lbs 5 x, how many times could I do 225lbs. You don't know. Could maybe guess within a few times but that is pretty poor. In a sport like cycling, or really in any sport with elite athletes, when the GT winners are separated from the rest by a very small percentage, how can you guess accurately?

 

[thehog]

Re:

Reading along here, I'm not sure I understand all of the context. Can someone clarify whether the following is correct:

Swart et al have analysed data from Froome from 2015. Their analysis will soon be published. They did not analyse, nor have they ever seen, data from 2007, or from any point prior to Froome's transformation to world class in 2011.

The Esquire article, and the cyclingnews article discussing Froome's results, both of which have much more reach and impact with the target audience of interest to Sky and Froome than any scienific journal, emphasised the 2007 data in comparison with the 2015 data, culminating in the following punchline, supplied by Swart:

"The engine was there all along," said Swart. "He just lost the fat."

Correct. Which leads one to the believe the entire exercise was PR and nothing Moore (pun intended).

 

[simoni]

How do we know what the physiological requirements would be for a clean cyclist to win the TdF if we never had one?
If I could bench press 400lbs 5 x, how many times could I do 225lbs. You don't know. Could maybe guess within a few times but that is pretty poor. In a sport like cycling, or really in any sport with elite athletes, when the GT winners are separated from the rest by a very small percentage, how can you guess accurately?

I don't think that's necessarily whats being said. I've tried to find the relevant section of this thread but have failed but my interpretation is that Froome results tell us what it currently takes to be a tour winner (as he was a recent tour winner) AND this, in the opinion of Jeroen/others is a level of performance that is achieveable by a clean athlete.

 

[Jeroen Swart]

Re: Re:

Reading along here, I'm not sure I understand all of the context. Can someone clarify whether the following is correct:

Swart et al have analysed data from Froome from 2015. Their analysis will soon be published. They did not analyse, nor have they ever seen, data from 2007, or from any point prior to Froome's transformation to world class in 2011.

The Esquire article, and the cyclingnews article discussing Froome's results, both of which have much more reach and impact with the target audience of interest to Sky and Froome than any scienific journal, emphasised the 2007 data in comparison with the 2015 data, culminating in the following punchline, supplied by Swart:

"The engine was there all along," said Swart. "He just lost the fat."

Jeroen

I think the issue here is that there are a number of people here (including myself) who aren't that fussed about your actual tests (although to be fair I await the publication as there may be snippets that are interesting). You are a good scientist going about your business - what will be demonstrated will be that a Tour winner can generate figures that can win the Tour (quelle surprise)...this we already know. Those figures will be 'down' on the extravagance of the epo and Lance eras...again...this we already know. This for you is job done. However, that is not Froome's story...Froome's story is 'the transformation'. The 2007 data, which remains unverified other than you providing a reference, is THE magic bullet for Froome as per the Moore sign-off and as per Moore on the Today programme on the day of its publication or as Moore put it "the really interesting bit". It legitimises a transformation.

Otherwise...well...we know Cram's quote about fish........

'They' have managed to conflate (in the mind of the esquire reading and rapha buying public) the 2007 data with your own data.

I don't think anyone on here thinks you will do anything but a good job with your subject...its the part you may be unwittingly playing in a bigger game under someone else's rules that is of issue.

Gillian I don't disagree with anything you've said.

However, when did it become my mandate to investigate Team Sky? I was asked to give context for a lay publication on data that I was presented with and that I have no reason to doubt.

The individuals questioning the authenticity of the 2007 data are here on this forum. On which note. Have you guys contacted Gregoire Millet yet?

You've done 80 pages of complaining already, mostly about the 2007 data. If you are all that dubious, make the effort to contact the scientists who collected it. Its 2016. Finding their email addresses or telephone numbers would take only a few minutes. Then you can stop asking me to answer questions about data that isn't mine to comment on.

You can ask me about the 2015 data. That's my domain.

 

[thehog]

That's all good and well but you're already invested in the 2007 data by the conclusions you made during the 2015 testing. You're now stepping away from that investment but it formed part of a fairly large piece in a very well know publication. 2015 & 2007 are joined at the hip.

I don't think anyone doubts your 2015 testing its just the method whereby you chose (willingly or unwillingly) to make a conclusion joining 2007 & 2015 in an article about the 2015 testing.

Maybe that's a Richard Moore issue but it does give rise that you were already well connected to the Froome's prior and your good name was forming part of PR work.

Who knows, we may never know.

 

[SeriousSam]

Re: Re:

You can ask me about the 2015 data. That's my domain.

It is unfortunate that your name, status as a scientist and quote were used to support a claim that cannot be supported just with the 2015 data.

It happens to be the claim Sky and Froome are most interested in manufacturing public acceptance on, because it demystifies the most suspicious, well known fact about Froome accessible to casual fans.

 

[Jeroen Swart]

That's all good and well but you're already invested in the 2007 data by the conclusions you made during the 2015 testing. You're now stepping away from that investment but it formed part of a fairly large piece in a very well know publication. 2015 & 2007 are joined at the hip.

I don't think anyone doubts your 2015 testing its just the method whereby you chose (willingly or unwillingly) to make a conclusion joining 2007 & 2015 in an article about the 2015 testing.

Maybe that's a Richard Moore issue but it does give rise that you were already well connected to the Froome's prior and your good name was forming part of PR work.

Who knows, we may never know.

Hog,

You are just as invested in this with the amount of time you've spent on it.

As I said. It wouldn't take you much effort to confirm or refute your hypothesis.

So get cracking.

I look forward to hearing the outcome.

Thanks,

Jeroen

 

[thehog]

That's all good and well but you're already invested in the 2007 data by the conclusions you made during the 2015 testing. You're now stepping away from that investment but it formed part of a fairly large piece in a very well know publication. 2015 & 2007 are joined at the hip.

I don't think anyone doubts your 2015 testing its just the method whereby you chose (willingly or unwillingly) to make a conclusion joining 2007 & 2015 in an article about the 2015 testing.

Maybe that's a Richard Moore issue but it does give rise that you were already well connected to the Froome's prior and your good name was forming part of PR work.

Who knows, we may never know.

Hog,

You are just as invested in this with the amount of time you've spent on it.

As I said. It wouldn't take you much effort to confirm or refute your hypothesis.

So get cracking.

I look forward to hearing the outcome.

Thanks,

Jeroen

Well, no, I'm not invested. I didn't put my name to the 2007 data and drawn a scientific conclusion as you did. All I did as a reader of Esquire magazine, was raise questions on the authenticity of the faxes, the data contained within and the conclusions drawn.

It's not for me to validate the data and conclusions you placed into he public domain, that should have been the job of yourself, Moore and the editor of Esquire magazine.

If you were so convinced by its contents that work would have already been done and fit neatly into the article and subsequent report.

With that said I would have thought the 'cracking' would have all been done by now (6 months post testing), sadly it wasn't and the conclusion "he just lost the fat", remains.

 

[sniper]

How do we know what the physiological requirements would be for a clean cyclist to win the TdF if we never had one?
If I could bench press 400lbs 5 x, how many times could I do 225lbs. You don't know. Could maybe guess within a few times but that is pretty poor. In a sport like cycling, or really in any sport with elite athletes, when the GT winners are separated from the rest by a very small percentage, how can you guess accurately?

I don't think that's necessarily whats being said.

yes it is.

From the release of the preliminary data, that answer is already clear. The requirements to win The Tour in recent years are within the bounds of normal physiology and within the capabilities of a clean athlete.

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

On which note. Have you guys contacted Gregoire Millet yet?

and ask him what exactly?
asking him if he forged the 2007 data is a bit like asking Froome if he dopes, isn't it.

 

[peloton]

Very short temper now, post, not poster.

 

[thehog]

Re:

Talking about 'spinning the message': Mark was just jumping the gun here?

Jeroen Swart ‏@JeroenSwart 7. Dez. 2015
@maximus_hoggus @EwonSprokler @DrMarkBurnley we've been asked by the scientists who collected that data whether we can publish it jointly.

(((Mark Burnley))) @DrMarkBurnley
@JeroenSwart @maximus_hoggus @EwonSprokler and there we have it - scientists who collected the data confident enough in it to publish.

I don't think that's "spinning" the message. What is; is a pre-determined conclusion had been made without even seeing the actual data. That's the worrying aspect of all this.

I think the 2015 data was conducted correctly and is sound. Just how a group of scientists got themselves caught up in the milieu of the 2007 fax I'll never know.