The Froome Files, test data only thread

[sniper]

Re: Re:

...
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.

agreed and thanks, that's a more eloquent take on it.

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.

indeed.
the more so, considering the UCI anno 2007 wasn't exactly void of corruption.
nor was Lausanne.
so there seems to have been no apriori reason to just take the data from that copy of that fax at face value / without any kind of scrutiny.

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

...

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.

agreed and thanks, that's a more eloquent take on it.

Out of interest, does 'Gregoire Millet' name appear on the infamous fax?

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I know this is going to read absurd but - What good does any data on Mushfroom in 2015 do for anything. For me it is = to a doctor doing a HIV test on a patient who has already been diagnosed with HIV. Or maybe that is a bad analogy ----but the only thing you can gain or study is --does his current physical condition lend itself to being a high performing athlete.

What are you researching the current condition against? Don't make any sense to me. Proving the proven.

 

[thehog]

Re:

I know this is going to read absurd but - What good does any data on Mushfroom in 2015 do for anything. For me it is = to a doctor doing a HIV test on a patient who has already been diagnosed with HIV. Or maybe that is a bad analogy ----but the only thing you can gain or study is --does his current physical condition lend itself to being a high performing athlete.

What are you researching the current condition against? Don't make any sense to me. Proving the proven.

Perhaps a better analogy would be the weather..

What good if you provide for a given city, temperature, relative humidity , precipitation levels for one day only?

 

[The Hitch]

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.

Wonder if it's also within the limits of a clean cyclist to dominate the peloton for 6 months from Feb to June, totally immune to fatigue. and then still have all the energy in the world to win the tour de france by 5 mins including 3 stage wins.

 

[djpbaltimore]

It puts a quantitative value on our qualitative observations. I don't think anybody is going to mistake this for a high impact publication, but by the same token, lower impact doesn't mean that the data is unworthy of publication.

Maybe the better analogy is a doctor doing a viral titer to determine how much HIV is in the patient?

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Re:

It puts a quantitative value on our qualitative observations. I don't think anybody is going to mistake this for a high impact publication, but by the same token, lower impact doesn't mean that the data is unworthy of publication.

Maybe the better analogy is a doctor doing a viral titer to determine how much HIV is in the patient?

Maybe so. Sometimes the amounts are different.

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

...

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.

agreed and thanks, that's a more eloquent take on it.

Out of interest, does 'Gregoire Millet' name appear on the infamous fax?

Well, no, he doesn't, however;

Former physical trainer and columnist Festina World, Antoine Vayer has not yet published its analysis of traditional powers developed by the riders on this step. His method is only an estimate and is contested by other experts, like Gregoire Millet, professor of biomechanics at Lausanne in 2013. The best way to measure the performance of Froome would access the SRM data (power indicators) collected in real time by his team. This is what is implied on his Twitter account Fred Bunch, director of the performance of the FDJ. Meanwhile, the presumption of innocence prevails.

https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=fr&u=http://www.lexpress.fr/actualite/sport/cyclisme/tour-de-france-chris-froome-face-aux-soupcons-de-dopage_1698934.html&prev=search

Which is what we received from Ventoux leaked file?

 

[thehog]

Good updates, thanks JS.

The 2007 data was always a problem for me and many others here, those faxes looked awfully dubious but you may have seen the data in raw format.

Sticking to the test data at hand was the better shot, it's reliable and collected under the same conditions. Not sure what conclusions that will be drawn but we can wait and see.

The 'He just lost fat, the engine was always there' statement is now etched in stone, is that something still stand by? Or do you have differing opinions on the reasoning behind the rise of Froome?

I haven't seen the raw data from 2007. However, we have been in contact with the scientists and they are highly respected. I therefore don't have any reason to doubt it's integrity.

Regarding the quote: Please remember that that piece was written for a lay publication which is meant to entertain. It is not a scientific manuscript. So you have to take that comment in it's context. To be honest I can't recall my exact words but I'm sure Richard wouldn't have misquoted me. Richard Moore interviewed me at the end of the day and it covered a lot of points over an interview which lasted a half hour or thereabouts. So it wasn't a one liner.

But to address that point specifically: The 2007 data show that he DID have a very big engine (on par with his current one) and he WAS fat (16.9% BF is absurdly high for someone aiming to perform at that level). So losing that fat and some lean muscle mass as well (otherwise it doesn't equate) would have been a significant factor in his performance improvement. There are probably a multitude of other factors and sometimes these may not even be possible to identify objectively. However, you can't dismiss that an 8kg weight loss for the same power isn't a massive or even overriding factor in his performance improvement. It would have have significant effects on his TT performances as well, not just his climbing.

Jeroen


Whilst not having seen the raw data, can you confirm the status of the 2007 data? You refer to 'scientists' having collected it? Do you know the purpose of its collection? I can imagine the UCI requiring some physiological testing (unlike sky obviously ) in order to help prepare training programs etc however, and it may be semantics, but would the guys doing it not just be exercise physiologists doing their day-job (so to speak)? rather than, say, scientists under taking research?

Also is the only data we have on weight the fax, if you've not seen the raw data?

Also, and outwith your remit...surely the mystery must remain that with such an 'absurdly' high body fat (despite some photos on here indicating otherwise) surely somebody at the UCI/Barloworld/Sky must have said..."steady Chris, lose the fat and you'll win the Tour"?

cheers

I cannot answer any of those questions as I don't have specifics. When I refer to scientists, I refer to the fact that they well published and active in science. I assume the purpose of the test at the time was as a baseline for the UCI development squad. In which case they were acting as exercise physiologists. But as you point out. It is semantics.

As to why nobody got on top of the weight? I don't have any details as to what transpired. Surely the same could have been said for UIrich and many others. In my experience, many of the top teams were not at all invested in science. They would pay the riders lots of money and tell them to make sure they were in shape. Telekom being a prime example. Some still do these days but most of the teams have become much more invested in the science.

Per Telekom; these are scenes from a 1997 training camp, the science looks very much "embedded" in the entire team, mullet hairdos includes :surprised:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=t90xWr6Cv7A

 

[sniper]

^interesting.

benotti had an excellent post late yesterday about science in cycling, too.
it was removed for reasons i am yet to become familiar with.

 

[Benotti69]

Re:

^interesting.

benotti had an excellent post late yesterday about science in cycling, too.
it was removed for reasons i am yet to become familiar with.

I did ask after it was removed to be placed in the Sky thread, but heard nothing and no post appeared.

The sports science in cycling goes way back. Plenty of evidence of that. Apparently me, MR LAYPERSON pointing out to DOCTOR SWART, who was claiming that Garmin/sky invented it, was laughable and did not go down well with some.

 

[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?

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.

Wonder if it's also within the limits of a clean cyclist to dominate the peloton for 6 months from Feb to June, totally immune to fatigue. and then still have all the energy in the world to win the tour de france by 5 mins including 3 stage wins.

Exactly. Swart is trying to claim Froome is a clean cyclist and he really has no clue if he is or not. So he cannot predict what a clean cyclist can do.
I am sure his physiological testing is accurate and professional, but who cares,it tells us nothing.
By releasing all the data from testing now is totally disingenuous now after the Esquire article. The Froome and Sky fans are going to forever cling to "he just lost the fat".
It is like a politician spouting an outright lie. It doesn't matter if it is proven a lie later because his supporters have already made up their mind.

 

[djpbaltimore]

Re: Re:

Hi Hog,

Thanks for the objective comments. I'm always happy to interact with rational discussion.

We have completed the responses to the reviewers and are currently completing the final edits before resubmitting the manuscript in the coming week. As is often the case, this has taken longer than initially predicted. Following our resubmission It is not possible to predict the exact timing of the publication of the manuscript as this is ultimately in the hands of the journal and editor. We feel confident that we have addressed all the reviewers comments adequately and hopefully this will avoid any further delay.

In response to your first comments: I would like to re-iterate that this data cannot provide any proof with respect to the doping debate. That question will only be answered by the test of time. I have stated this a good number of times to date. My personal interest in this study (as per my social media comments to Ross Tucker during the 2015 Tour and my predictions on what was physiologically required to produce the performances) was to assess whether the performances we are seeing at present could be considered beyond the capability of normal human physiology. If that was the case, then we could answer the doping question easily. Impossible is impossible, simple. 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. Whether or not any of the winners in the last 8 years have managed to do it cleanly is another question. Using prohibited substances or methods can obviously allow a very talented athlete to produce spectacular performances. This manuscript will not answer that question one way or another.

What it does provide is some unique insights into Chris Froome's physiology. I didn't go into the study with the expectation that we would find anything novel. I expected so see a high VO2 max and concomitant high sub maximal values that would fit with the performances in the field. However, during analysis of the data we did find some unique characteristics and I think that they will make for some interesting reading and will almost certainly stimulate some debate both here and in more scientific forums.

With respect to the inclusion of additional data: We did debate this extensively and ultimately decided that we did not want to publish any data that was not collected directly by us. Although there is some discussion in the manuscript around other data, the data analysed is all from the GSK lab. There was more than enough data to produce a fairly lengthy manuscript as it is.

Regards,

Jeroen

I think this bolded statement bears repeating in light of recent posts.

@veganrob. If you think some intransigent fans have irrational or deluded beliefs about SKY/ Froome, ignore them.

I look forward to reading about the interesting parts also mentioned above.

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

...
I think this bolded statement bears repeating in light of recent posts.

I think Swart's statements that finish off the Esquire article bear repeating, too.
Not to mention his statements on twitter, constantly implying Froome is clean.
That's what counts. Why can't he keep an agnostic view on Froome when he speaks to a wider audience? He should, in his capacity as scientist and especially as member of an ADA.

 

[veganrob]

@djpbaltimore I do ignore them

 

[djpbaltimore]

On twitter?

mrhender ‏@cleanversion 7 Dec 2015
@JeroenSwart Okay I'll ask in another way. What has your study on Froome learned you about him being clean or not?

Jeroen Swart ‏@JeroenSwart 7 Dec 2015
@cleanversion absolutely nothing.

Isn't that an agnostic view? Reading between the lines for implicit messages is really not necessary IMO when he has so often gone on record about his views.

But this is a dead horse by now, so that is my final contribution until the report is actually public (to academics!).

@veganrob. Good! It will keep your blood pressure down! I have to do the same with anti-vaxxers....

 

[thehog]

Re:

^interesting.

benotti had an excellent post late yesterday about science in cycling, too.
it was removed for reasons i am yet to become familiar with.

It’s a good video, all 44 minutes of it recorded on betamax! That’s Rudy Pevenage in the parachute tracksuit analysing powerfiles, they’ve got vo2 max tests on all riders. The part I like is generating the computer modeled stick figure of rider position for aerodynamics. Impressive set up.

And of course the biggest omission by those who think science only began with Sky is that SRM, the godfathers of powermeters is a German company.

SRM - Schoberer Rad Messtechnik - was founded by engineer Ulrich Schoberer in 1986. Prior to this the qualified medical engineer had spent many years thinking up and experimenting with ways to measure an athlete's power output on the pedals under real conditions during an actual ride.

Up until the eighties, no adequate method had been found to measure performance on a bike in training or racing, you still had to rely on lab testing instead. This meant that athletes were forced to go back and forth between their real performance - cycling on the road or cross country - and the ergometer in the lab. With lab testing, they still couldn't tell how their performance had changed over a period of a few hours, either in a race or in training. Lab testing was an intermittent check-up, at best, but couldn't tell athletes anything about how they were performing day-to-day. And the most important performance - during competition - couldn't be tested.

http://www.srm.de/company/history/

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

Hi Hog,

Thanks for the objective comments. I'm always happy to interact with rational discussion.

We have completed the responses to the reviewers and are currently completing the final edits before resubmitting the manuscript in the coming week. As is often the case, this has taken longer than initially predicted. Following our resubmission It is not possible to predict the exact timing of the publication of the manuscript as this is ultimately in the hands of the journal and editor. We feel confident that we have addressed all the reviewers comments adequately and hopefully this will avoid any further delay.

In response to your first comments: I would like to re-iterate that this data cannot provide any proof with respect to the doping debate. That question will only be answered by the test of time. I have stated this a good number of times to date. My personal interest in this study (as per my social media comments to Ross Tucker during the 2015 Tour and my predictions on what was physiologically required to produce the performances) was to assess whether the performances we are seeing at present could be considered beyond the capability of normal human physiology. If that was the case, then we could answer the doping question easily. Impossible is impossible, simple. 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. Whether or not any of the winners in the last 8 years have managed to do it cleanly is another question. Using prohibited substances or methods can obviously allow a very talented athlete to produce spectacular performances. This manuscript will not answer that question one way or another.

What it does provide is some unique insights into Chris Froome's physiology. I didn't go into the study with the expectation that we would find anything novel. I expected so see a high VO2 max and concomitant high sub maximal values that would fit with the performances in the field. However, during analysis of the data we did find some unique characteristics and I think that they will make for some interesting reading and will almost certainly stimulate some debate both here and in more scientific forums.

With respect to the inclusion of additional data: We did debate this extensively and ultimately decided that we did not want to publish any data that was not collected directly by us. Although there is some discussion in the manuscript around other data, the data analysed is all from the GSK lab. There was more than enough data to produce a fairly lengthy manuscript as it is.

Regards,

Jeroen

I think this bolded statement bears repeating in light of recent posts.

@veganrob. If you think some intransigent fans have irrational or deluded beliefs about SKY/ Froome, ignore them.

I look forward to reading about the interesting parts also mentioned above.

So some interesting 'characterisitics' that only kicked in after the Tour of Poland and before La Vuelta!!!!

Of course they did.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Re: Re:

^interesting.

benotti had an excellent post late yesterday about science in cycling, too.
it was removed for reasons i am yet to become familiar with.

I did ask after it was removed to be placed in the Sky thread, but heard nothing and no post appeared.

The sports science in cycling goes way back. Plenty of evidence of that. Apparently me, MR LAYPERSON pointing out to DOCTOR SWART, who was claiming that Garmin/sky invented it, was laughable and did not go down well with some.

Seems like you better not point out anything to the "Dr." or else.
But what you guys have pointed out is the truth.

 

[The Hitch]

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.

Mission accomplished.

Yes, it appears that way. By design? From the Froome's point of view, yes. I think Swart got lead into to be honest but he knows Froome for a long time before the testing and way better than we do to judge the character.

Wait, what?

Jeroen has known Froome for a long time?

I thought he was an independent expert who had no connection. I've seen dozens of articles where Swart talks about Froome and it always gives the impression that Swart is just some random observer commenting on Froome.

If they've been friends since before 2015 then this would be a bit of a conjob.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Re: Re:

^interesting.

benotti had an excellent post late yesterday about science in cycling, too.
it was removed for reasons i am yet to become familiar with.

It’s a good video, all 44 minutes of it recorded on betamax! That’s Rudy Pevenage in the parachute tracksuit analysing powerfiles, they’ve got vo2 max tests on all riders. The part I like is generating the computer modeled stick figure of rider position for aerodynamics. Impressive set up.

And of course the biggest omission by those who think science only began with Sky is that SRM, the godfathers of powermeters is a German company.

The first power measurement cycling ergometer was built in the late 1800s. As were the first force measurement pedals on a bicycle ridden outside.

 

[Soggy Chamois]

For Dr. Swart and the other sports scientists on the forum, is the 9.8% body fat figure at all surprising coming only 3 weeks after the Tour De France conclusion where many riders, including Froome look almost emaciated? Indeed, Moore himself uses the word emaciated to describe Froome even at the time of the GSK lab testing.

Similarly, does that 9.8% body fat make sense when Froome plans to start and perform well at a second grand tour only 5 days after the August 2015 testing?

How low of a body fat percentage would a typical elite cyclist be able to reach before one might expect performance/power to begin to decline? Is there an optimal body fat percentage range to target for grand tours?

Do you think grand tour riders, whether through WADA compliant methods or doping methods, might be trying to drop additional body weight by reducing their bone mass - since one might expect an ability to drop additional weight without impacting power if bone mass is targeted?

One final note, not directed at anyone, but just in case it wasn't covered in the previous 80 pages: I notice in the Richard Moore article that he indicates blood data is shown for an out-of-competition blood test that was "taken the morning after his test in the GSK Human Performance Lab". From GSK's own website, the physiological testing was Aug.17th. In the article, Richard Moore lists the blood data as being from Aug. 20th. I'm not sure it's significant - but Aug.20th is not the day after the lab tests as he wrote - it's inconsistent.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

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.

Mission accomplished.

Yes, it appears that way. By design? From the Froome's point of view, yes. I think Swart got lead into to be honest but he knows Froome for a long time before the testing and way better than we do to judge the character.

Wait, what?

Jeroen has known Froome for a long time?

I thought he was an independent expert who had no connection. I've seen dozens of articles where Swart talks about Froome and it always gives the impression that Swart is just some random observer commenting on Froome.

If they've been friends since before 2015 then this would be a bit of a conjob.

I missed something. Is this a fact? I put in bold the part I'm asking about. This true?

 

[thehog]

Is it? I saw a few things but nothing that would substitute Swart and Froome were any more than just knowing of each other.

If it was the case and that now the 2007 data has been dropped after the 'he just lost the fat" statement then I think many would find it most troubling

 

[Benotti69]

For Dr. Swart and the other sports scientists on the forum, is the 9.8% body fat figure at all surprising coming only 3 weeks after the Tour De France conclusion where many riders, including Froome look almost emaciated? Indeed, Moore himself uses the word emaciated to describe Froome even at the time of the GSK lab testing.

Similarly, does that 9.8% body fat make sense when Froome plans to start and perform well at a second grand tour only 5 days after the August 2015 testing?

How low of a body fat percentage would a typical elite cyclist be able to reach before one might expect performance/power to begin to decline? Is there an optimal body fat percentage range to target for grand tours?

Do you think grand tour riders, whether through WADA compliant methods or doping methods, might be trying to drop additional body weight by reducing their bone mass - since one might expect an ability to drop additional weight without impacting power if bone mass is targeted?

One final note, not directed at anyone, but just in case it wasn't covered in the previous 80 pages: I notice in the Richard Moore article that he indicates blood data is shown for an out-of-competition blood test that was "taken the morning after his test in the GSK Human Performance Lab". From GSK's own website, the physiological testing was Aug.17th. In the article, Richard Moore lists the blood data as being from Aug. 20th. I'm not sure it's significant - but Aug.20th is not the day after the lab tests as he wrote - it's inconsistent.

Actually pretty consistent with anything Sky and Froome related. Facts misrepresented and myth pedalled.