The Froome Files, test data only thread

[acoggan]

Re: Re:

(snip)

The two parameter CP model assumes that there is a linear relationship between duration and total work performed. In point of fact, however, this relationship is actually concave downward. Consequently, when you use durations such as 20 and 60 min vs., say, 1 and 10 min, you get a lower CP and a much higher AWC. Dauwe, however, appears to be ignorant of this simple fact, which is why he reports grossly inflated values for AWC and underestimates CP.

Bottom line, Dauwe's analysis is fatally flawed, and would never pass muster in any decent peer-reviewed sports science or exercise physiology journal.

 

[ac4tw]

It doesn't mean that in the least. PPO during an incremental exercise test and sustainable power during a TT are essentially two different things (especially over such a narrow range).

I agree, but the article does say "the peak power of 525W compares favourably to the PPO of 540w reported in 2007 when expressed relatively to body mass (7.5 vs 7.1 w/kg)" yet they don't discuss the threshold power reported as 420w in 2007, which was 1w more than in 2015. VO2 max in 2007 was 6.06 L/min, 5.91 L/min in 2015. You can see how his performance on MTFs would improve with weight loss, but in other aspects?

In 2007 his threshold power was higher, his VO2 max in L/min was higher, yet his performance was significantly different. As a genuine question, how much difference would his weight have on his TT performance given those numbers?

 

[Merckx index]

Re: Re:

The two parameter CP model assumes that there is a linear relationship between duration and total work performed. In point of fact, however, this relationship is actually concave downward. Consequently, when you use durations such as 20 and 60 min vs., say, 1 and 10 min, you get a lower CP and a much higher AWC. Dauwe, however, appears to be ignorant of this simple fact, which is why he reports grossly inflated values for AWC and underestimates CP.

Bottom line, Dauwe's analysis is fatally flawed, and would never pass muster in any decent peer-reviewed sports science or exercise physiology journal.

Well, no, in one of his other analyses I linked, he specifically discusses the fact that the CP/AEC values are different when determined from shorter times, and proposes a more generalized model to account for this. His claim is that the aerobic value obtained from short times is actually closer to MAP, while that obtained from longer times is closer to the sustainable value usually associated with CP.

This model lifts the long standing discrepancy between the determinations of CP from short or from long efforts. CP from short test is closely related to MAP, while CP from long times is related to Maximal Lactate Steady State. CP test should be performed in the exhaustive time interval where Weff’ has a constant value, i.e. for times higher than TSCP. [which he claims is about 22 minutes]

http://www.jsc-journal.com/ojs/index.php?journal=JSC&page=article&op=view&path%5B%5D=195&path%5B%5D=258

I'm not passing judgment on the model (which was fleshed out with data from a single cyclist, and yields an extraordinarily high maximum AEC value of 2.5 kJ/kg, though it's dependent on total power output), nor am I familiar with the level of quality in different journals in this field, but he's definitely not ignorant of the different relationships at shorter and longer times.

In 2007 his threshold power was higher, his VO2 max in L/min was higher, yet his performance was significantly different. As a genuine question, how much difference would his weight have on his TT performance given those numbers?

In theory, the difference in weight would correspond to about a 5% greater surface area at the earlier time. Plugging that and his weight into an online calculator, I come up with about a 2% increase in TT speed, and that's assuming no drop in power with the loss in weight. It has been fairly well documented here that his TT speeds increased around 10-15% from pre- to post-2011.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Re: Re:

It's a bit OT but anyway, one only has to look at the journal names to be highly skeptical of many of the listed studies, let alone the lack of proper controls.

Ironic that you’re willing to dismiss studies simply based on what journal they’re published in--guilt by association--but won’t apply that extreme skepticism to riders winning races known to be populated by dopers.

One says cupping+acupuncture was as effective as acupuncture! :lol:

Sort of like Froome’s claim that he put out less power on a climb than that of several riders he dropped on that climb.

Both non-sequiturs.

The quality of the journal is actually a good first step to at least work out whether to raise a red flag and be extra diligent about checking the study itself - as many journals have a very poor record and apply a very low quality filter to the science they present. The next test of course is to read the actual study and test the validity of the methodology, data and conclusions. When I see a report that says cupping is effective because it was as good as acupuncture, then I know we have a problem. and so on... OK, I'll leave the cupping debate, it's way OT and the links I provided earlier should be very telling.


My engagement in the clinic is mostly about testing the validity of "evidence" or conclusions drawn from such evidence and pointing out logical fallacies (e.g. like your two non-sequiturs above). e.g. if one is going to decide a rider is doping based on something like a power estimate or the fact they drank a coffee from McDonalds or whatever ever someone makes up, my objective is to 1. test the validity of the data/evidence and 2. to test the validity of conclusions one can draw from such data.

Often the answer is that these things simply don't give the answer that many on here would like them to. You can't force stuff to give the answer you want, IOW non-sequiturs.

There is nothing wrong of course with having an opinion about a rider, but opinions are not evidence and nor are they always the result of sound logical reasoning but of course they can be.

There's also nothing wrong with saying "I don't know", or at least to say that the evidence under question does not support such a conclusion either way (e.g. if Team Sky say this phys testing proves Froome is clean - that's logically flawed). And finally of course there is evidence and conclusions that are sound.

There are also shades of grey and probabilities, and we can also test validity as to how strongly or weakly something falls on such a spectrum.

 

[biker jk]

I would expect those making a living from marketing sports science as the way for their clients to achieve success to dispute claims that such performances can only be achieved via doping. After all, why pay for their services when all you need to do is dope to win?

 

[sniper]

I would expect those making a living from marketing sports science as the way for their clients to achieve success to dispute claims that such performances can only be achieved via doping. After all, why pay for their services when all you need to do is dope to win?

Kabang, right on the dough.
Swart has four jobs, and at least three of them are in conflict with each other.
The fact none of that is frowned upon, and instead is seen as normal, is worrying.
Clearly its par for the course for sports science and antidoping, and it's one reason why Robertson said sport is broke and being raped by the people in charge.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

I would expect those making a living from marketing sports science as the way for their clients to achieve success to dispute claims that such performances can only be achieved via doping. After all, why pay for their services when all you need to do is dope to win?

Who is suggesting the only way to improve performance is via doping? That would be a rather strange position to take. Performance gain via legitimate and illegitimate means are not mutually exclusive.

 

[sniper]

I would expect those making a living from marketing sports science as the way for their clients to achieve success to dispute claims that such performances can only be achieved via doping. After all, why pay for their services when all you need to do is dope to win?

Who is suggesting the only way to improve performance is via doping? That would be a rather strange position to take. Performance gain via legitimate and illegitimate means are not mutually exclusive.

The problem obviously is that the potential gains of doping are being ignored all together, instead of being investigated. See swart/gsk paper for a recent example.

 

[biker jk]

I would expect those making a living from marketing sports science as the way for their clients to achieve success to dispute claims that such performances can only be achieved via doping. After all, why pay for their services when all you need to do is dope to win?

Who is suggesting the only way to improve performance is via doping? That would be a rather strange position to take. Performance gain via legitimate and illegitimate means are not mutually exclusive.

No, my point is that I would expect sports scientists to argue that performance can't/shouldn't be used as a guide to doping. So they would naturally argue against yardsticks such as x watts/kg, etc. Instead, it would be in their interest to claim that such performances can be achieved through their training plans.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

No, my point is that I would expect sports scientists to argue that performance can't/shouldn't be used as a guide to doping. So they would naturally argue against yardsticks such as x watts/kg, etc. Instead, it would be in their interest to claim that such performances can be achieved through their training plans.

You're not making sense. I've tried to parse this paragraph and have failed to get your point. It's quite a confusing statement.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

I would expect those making a living from marketing sports science as the way for their clients to achieve success to dispute claims that such performances can only be achieved via doping. After all, why pay for their services when all you need to do is dope to win?

Who is suggesting the only way to improve performance is via doping? That would be a rather strange position to take. Performance gain via legitimate and illegitimate means are not mutually exclusive.

The problem obviously is that the potential gains of doping are being ignored all together, instead of being investigated. See swart/gsk paper for a recent example.

In that case the scientists performed the physiological tests and wrote up the results. Again, criticising the exercise for not doing whatever it is you wanted it to is unfair. There are science papers on doping and its impact, it's not as if the topic has been completely ignored. Type "doping and sport" into PubMed and over 4000 references come up. Obviously not all are exactly on topic, but it's not as if it hasn't been studied.

Let's turn this around. Tell us how a scientist could reliably establish post-hoc that an athlete IS or HAS BEEN doping and how they can establish post-hoc an athlete IS NOT doping? Looking forward to learning the fool proof methodology.

 

[acoggan]

Re: Re:

(snip)

Dauwe shopped his original article around before it went public. He was seemingly unaware of the effect of duration on CP test results, and when informed ignored the opportunity to correct the problem. His subsequent efforts/calculations - which neither make sense from a physiological perspective nor pass muster from a modeling perspective - strike me as an attempt to justify his earlier mistake.

 

[sniper]

I would expect those making a living from marketing sports science as the way for their clients to achieve success to dispute claims that such performances can only be achieved via doping. After all, why pay for their services when all you need to do is dope to win?

Who is suggesting the only way to improve performance is via doping? That would be a rather strange position to take. Performance gain via legitimate and illegitimate means are not mutually exclusive.

The problem obviously is that the potential gains of doping are being ignored all together, instead of being investigated. See swart/gsk paper for a recent example.

In that case the scientists performed the physiological tests and wrote up the results. Again, criticising the exercise for not doing whatever it is you wanted it to is unfair.

I think it is fair.
When the testing was done, Moore, Froome/Sky and the researchers involved (Swart on twitter, too) all stressed that this testing was a response to 'The Call'. Now, what was 'The Call' again?
The Call was for Froome and Team Sky to provide any kind of reliable data that would shed light on Froome's transformation.
Now, I think it is fair to review this publication in that light.
And when doing that, you'll agree, there is only one conclusion: this was a pure and plain PR exercise and had very little if anything to do with The Call. Rather, it was meant as a smokescreen allowing Sky/Froome to falsely pretend The Call has been addressed/answered.
So in my humble view we were lied to.

Now, did you see what GSK have written on their website (posted by Gillan before)? Any excuse for that?
It's glowing evidence (as if such were needed) that the researchers involved in the testing were biased.
And we've discussed more evidence of such a bias. If you want, I can dig it up.
In science, such a bias should be declared.
Since it's not been declared, I can only conclude we're dealing with very iffy scientific ethical standards here.

 

[Benotti69]

Well done Sniper for bring this thread back to the reason Froome was doing these tests.

It was to answer 'The Call' of how can Froome win GTs?

That has not been answered.

 

[Jeroen Swart]

Re:

Well done Sniper for bring this thread back to the reason Froome was doing these tests.

It was to answer 'The Call' of how can Froome win GTs?

That has not been answered.

Actually you and Sniper are making it up as you go along.

Let's go back to the facts from July 2015 before Froome agreed to undergo testing:

"Each set of tests should include a full round of physiological tests which look at V02 max – a topic that has followed Froome since 2013, a calculation of his maximum capacity and his sustainable capacity for certain periods. These tests would allow for independent analysts. Then, according to Tucker, based off the power output from his performances “you would be able to interrogate it for plausibility.”

The test data alone would not be able to prove if a rider was doping or clean. “If this was a court case and your argument was based off a lab test and some SRM files you wouldn’t make it past the opening arguments. The numbers won’t prove doping but what you can do is start to have a better indication of what’s plausible and what’s realistic because things would quickly not add up if there was a problem.

“Let’s say a rider capable of riding a mountain at 420 watts but your testing shows that he would need to be riding at 95 per cent of his own maximum, given his measured VO2 max, to produce that then you will have identified a problem.

“So someone with a Vo2 max of X and an efficiency of 95 per cent then you’ll have to say that no human being can sustain such a high level for so long unless something has changed since you’ve tested them.”"

 

[Jeroen Swart]

Re: Re:

Well done Sniper for bring this thread back to the reason Froome was doing these tests.

It was to answer 'The Call' of how can Froome win GTs?

That has not been answered.

Actually you and Sniper are making it up as you go along.

Let's go back to the facts from July 2015 before Froome agreed to undergo testing:

"Each set of tests should include a full round of physiological tests which look at V02 max – a topic that has followed Froome since 2013, a calculation of his maximum capacity and his sustainable capacity for certain periods. These tests would allow for independent analysts. Then, according to Tucker, based off the power output from his performances “you would be able to interrogate it for plausibility.”

The test data alone would not be able to prove if a rider was doping or clean. “If this was a court case and your argument was based off a lab test and some SRM files you wouldn’t make it past the opening arguments. The numbers won’t prove doping but what you can do is start to have a better indication of what’s plausible and what’s realistic because things would quickly not add up if there was a problem.

“Let’s say a rider capable of riding a mountain at 420 watts but your testing shows that he would need to be riding at 95 per cent of his own maximum, given his measured VO2 max, to produce that then you will have identified a problem.

“So someone with a Vo2 max of X and an efficiency of 95 per cent then you’ll have to say that no human being can sustain such a high level for so long unless something has changed since you’ve tested them.”"

And that is EXACTLY what I proposed and EXACTLY what was done in the tests.

Now lets keep shifting those goalposts Sniper and smearing my name so that you can fulfil your agenda.

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

Well done Sniper for bring this thread back to the reason Froome was doing these tests.

It was to answer 'The Call' of how can Froome win GTs?

That has not been answered.

Actually you and Sniper are making it up as you go along.

Let's go back to the facts from July 2015 before Froome agreed to undergo testing:

"Each set of tests should include a full round of physiological tests which look at V02 max – a topic that has followed Froome since 2013, a calculation of his maximum capacity and his sustainable capacity for certain periods. These tests would allow for independent analysts. Then, according to Tucker, based off the power output from his performances “you would be able to interrogate it for plausibility.”

The test data alone would not be able to prove if a rider was doping or clean. “If this was a court case and your argument was based off a lab test and some SRM files you wouldn’t make it past the opening arguments. The numbers won’t prove doping but what you can do is start to have a better indication of what’s plausible and what’s realistic because things would quickly not add up if there was a problem.

“Let’s say a rider capable of riding a mountain at 420 watts but your testing shows that he would need to be riding at 95 per cent of his own maximum, given his measured VO2 max, to produce that then you will have identified a problem.

“So someone with a Vo2 max of X and an efficiency of 95 per cent then you’ll have to say that no human being can sustain such a high level for so long unless something has changed since you’ve tested them.”"

And that is EXACTLY what I proposed and EXACTLY what was done in the tests.

Now lets keep shifting those goalposts Sniper and smearing my name so that you can fulfil your agenda.

I would agree with you. I think the misstep occurred with Moore's Esquire article which was clearly slating that the testing would prove the physiology and thus cleanliness of Froome. Coupled with the "he just lost the fat, the engine was always there" claim the actual results of the test were somewhat lost.

What more can I do, as a clean athlete?” asked Froome towards the end of the Tour. Some responded that he could release data about his performances and physiology. The debate focused in particular on Froome’s ability in his favourite terrain, the mountains, where various sports scientists and armchair experts were able to calculate his power output — to varying degrees of accuracy — and decide whether they believed it was plausible or not.

http://chrisfroome.esquire.co.uk

"The engine was there all along,” says Swart. “He just lost the fat"

 

[Merckx index]

Each set of tests should include a full round of physiological tests which look at V02 max – a topic that has followed Froome since 2013, a calculation of his maximum capacity and his sustainable capacity for certain periods.

Well, we still don’t know his sustainable capacity for certain periods. There is no power profile at various times, as was done with Pinot (I haven’t seen the full paper, but there’s no reference to one in the abstract). We know his capacity at 4 mM lactate, but no one seems willing or able to say exactly how long that is sustainable (again, at least not in the abstract). Twenty minutes? Thirty? Forty? More than forty? What period of time would you be comfortable with saying, Jeroen?

Let’s say it’s forty minutes. Let’s also say that he can put out the same power at 67 kg—not proven, but certainly a reasonable possibility (in the Kimmage interview he claims he’s been racing at 66 kg since 2011; but Grappe says he weighed 68). That puts him at about the same watts/kg as Pantani/Armstrong in their fastest climbs up ADH—even higher if we use the formula with V02max and GE, and assume 90% sustainability. Even at the 70-71 kg at which these tests were actually done—and in the Kimmage interview, he says, at various points, that he weighed anywhere from 70-72 kg beginning as early as 2007—he would be at about 40 minutes for that climb, which would have made him one of the best climbers in the world at this time, or shortly after, when the passport came out and climbing speeds generally declined a little.

So the trigger Ross talked about setting off is not the issue here. On the contrary, what we seem to have is a lab performance that is on a par with what the best dopers in the world have been able to do on the road. Maybe he can do better fresh in the lab than at the end of a long stage in a GT. After all, he’s hasn’t come close to this power in his GT climbs AFAIK, whereas he claimed an even higher power in a single ride up the Madone. I don’t know how lab performance is supposed to translate to a race, there seem to be some factors that would favor the lab, but others that would favor the race.

But these tests seem to make it very clear that the Froome you tested in the lab, for whatever reason, is a) certainly capable of doing what he’s done on the road; and b) should have been able to do far more pre-2011 than what he actually did. I think that’s where we are now.

 

[Ironhead Slim]

Re: Re:

Well done Sniper for bring this thread back to the reason Froome was doing these tests.

It was to answer 'The Call' of how can Froome win GTs?

That has not been answered.

Actually you and Sniper are making it up as you go along.

Let's go back to the facts from July 2015 before Froome agreed to undergo testing:

"Each set of tests should include a full round of physiological tests which look at V02 max – a topic that has followed Froome since 2013, a calculation of his maximum capacity and his sustainable capacity for certain periods. These tests would allow for independent analysts. Then, according to Tucker, based off the power output from his performances “you would be able to interrogate it for plausibility.”

The test data alone would not be able to prove if a rider was doping or clean. “If this was a court case and your argument was based off a lab test and some SRM files you wouldn’t make it past the opening arguments. The numbers won’t prove doping but what you can do is start to have a better indication of what’s plausible and what’s realistic because things would quickly not add up if there was a problem.

“Let’s say a rider capable of riding a mountain at 420 watts but your testing shows that he would need to be riding at 95 per cent of his own maximum, given his measured VO2 max, to produce that then you will have identified a problem.

“So someone with a Vo2 max of X and an efficiency of 95 per cent then you’ll have to say that no human being can sustain such a high level for so long unless something has changed since you’ve tested them.”"

And that is EXACTLY what I proposed and EXACTLY what was done in the tests.

Now lets keep shifting those goalposts Sniper and smearing my name so that you can fulfil your agenda.

You are the one putting your name to this 'test' that doesn't tell us one iota of how Froome went from average to superstar in 2011. That is the question many want answered. The rest of this is subterfuge. Why continue that day without heart rate measurement? You can talk all around me with scientific terminology but from where I sit that day of testing and a year to publish was a waste of time.

 

[Jeroen Swart]

Re:

Each set of tests should include a full round of physiological tests which look at V02 max – a topic that has followed Froome since 2013, a calculation of his maximum capacity and his sustainable capacity for certain periods.

Well, we still don’t know his sustainable capacity for certain periods. There is no power profile at various times, as was done with Pinot (I haven’t seen the full paper, but there’s no reference to one in the abstract). We know his capacity at 4 mM lactate, but no one seems willing or able to say exactly how long that is sustainable (again, at least not in the abstract). Twenty minutes? Thirty? Forty? More than forty? What period of time would you be comfortable with saying, Jeroen?

Let’s say it’s forty minutes. Let’s also say that he can put out the same power at 67 kg—not proven, but certainly a reasonable possibility (in the Kimmage interview he claims he’s been racing at 66 kg since 2011; but Grappe says he weighed 68). That puts him at about the same watts/kg as Pantani/Armstrong in their fastest climbs up ADH—even higher if we use the formula with V02max and GE, and assume 90% sustainability. Even at the 70-71 kg at which these tests were actually done—and in the Kimmage interview, he says, at various points, that he weighed anywhere from 70-72 kg beginning as early as 2007—he would be at about 40 minutes for that climb, which would have made him one of the best climbers in the world at this time, or shortly after, when the passport came out and climbing speeds generally declined a little.

So the trigger Ross talked about setting off is not the issue here. On the contrary, what we seem to have is a lab performance that is on a par with what the best dopers in the world have been able to do on the road. Maybe he can do better fresh in the lab than at the end of a long stage in a GT. After all, he’s hasn’t come close to this power in his GT climbs AFAIK, whereas he claimed an even higher power in a single ride up the Madone. I don’t know how lab performance is supposed to translate to a race, there seem to be some factors that would favor the lab, but others that would favor the race.

But these tests seem to make it very clear that the Froome you tested in the lab, for whatever reason, is a) certainly capable of doing what he’s done on the road; and b) should have been able to do far more pre-2011 than what he actually did. I think that’s where we are now.

The only means of assessing capability over a specific time period is to perform a maximal effort for that period. That is something that doesn't lend itself to a laboratory test of short duration. Performing maximal sustained efforts are aversive and preclude performing other tests prior to or post the maximal effort. So it is a catch 22 scenario.

Hence you have to use a proxy and 4mmol.l-1 lactate is a reasonable one.

It certainly illustrates that the performances in the field are in keeping with the physiology as per your comment in bold above.

And to quote Ross again: “Let’s say a rider capable of riding a mountain at 420 watts but your testing shows that he would need to be riding at 95 per cent of his own maximum, given his measured VO2 max, to produce that then you will have identified a problem."

The 4mmol.-1 we know to correlate well for performance of an hour duration. Whether he is capable of greater for a period of 1 hour is a question that we can't answer with this data. For shorter duration the CP curve tells us he would be capable of significantly higher power outputs. 6.3W.kg-1 for 20min is certainly reasonable at the tested weight. At a lower race weight, even higher. What it does answer is that the performances in the field as predicted by the climbing times are well within the normal ranges based on the test data (82% of PPO). Which answers the question above posed by Ross and also those prompted by all the calls that the performances were "Mutant" and beyond belief.

These tests were never going to answer all the questions. They answered some specific questions posed at the time and highlighted by me previous post.

Whether or not he doped won't be answered by these tests. I have stated that many, many times. Only time will answer that question (or maybe not).

 

[Jeroen Swart]

Re: Re:

Well done Sniper for bring this thread back to the reason Froome was doing these tests.

It was to answer 'The Call' of how can Froome win GTs?

That has not been answered.

Actually you and Sniper are making it up as you go along.

Let's go back to the facts from July 2015 before Froome agreed to undergo testing:

"Each set of tests should include a full round of physiological tests which look at V02 max – a topic that has followed Froome since 2013, a calculation of his maximum capacity and his sustainable capacity for certain periods. These tests would allow for independent analysts. Then, according to Tucker, based off the power output from his performances “you would be able to interrogate it for plausibility.”

The test data alone would not be able to prove if a rider was doping or clean. “If this was a court case and your argument was based off a lab test and some SRM files you wouldn’t make it past the opening arguments. The numbers won’t prove doping but what you can do is start to have a better indication of what’s plausible and what’s realistic because things would quickly not add up if there was a problem.

“Let’s say a rider capable of riding a mountain at 420 watts but your testing shows that he would need to be riding at 95 per cent of his own maximum, given his measured VO2 max, to produce that then you will have identified a problem.

“So someone with a Vo2 max of X and an efficiency of 95 per cent then you’ll have to say that no human being can sustain such a high level for so long unless something has changed since you’ve tested them.”"

And that is EXACTLY what I proposed and EXACTLY what was done in the tests.

Now lets keep shifting those goalposts Sniper and smearing my name so that you can fulfil your agenda.

You are the one putting your name to this 'test' that doesn't tell us one iota of how Froome went from average to superstar in 2011. That is the question many want answered. The rest of this is subterfuge. Why continue that day without heart rate measurement? You can talk all around me with scientific terminology but from where I sit that day of testing and a year to publish was a waste of time.

Read my post again. You are completely off track.

The mandate (as posed by Ross, Grappe, Vayer and others) was for a VO2max and other sub maximal tests. I agreed to fulfil that mandate.

Whether that pleases you and does or doesn't answer the question you want to have answered is not relevant. You are barking up the wrong tree.

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

Well done Sniper for bring this thread back to the reason Froome was doing these tests.

It was to answer 'The Call' of how can Froome win GTs?

That has not been answered.

Actually you and Sniper are making it up as you go along.

Let's go back to the facts from July 2015 before Froome agreed to undergo testing:

"Each set of tests should include a full round of physiological tests which look at V02 max – a topic that has followed Froome since 2013, a calculation of his maximum capacity and his sustainable capacity for certain periods. These tests would allow for independent analysts. Then, according to Tucker, based off the power output from his performances “you would be able to interrogate it for plausibility.”

The test data alone would not be able to prove if a rider was doping or clean. “If this was a court case and your argument was based off a lab test and some SRM files you wouldn’t make it past the opening arguments. The numbers won’t prove doping but what you can do is start to have a better indication of what’s plausible and what’s realistic because things would quickly not add up if there was a problem.

“Let’s say a rider capable of riding a mountain at 420 watts but your testing shows that he would need to be riding at 95 per cent of his own maximum, given his measured VO2 max, to produce that then you will have identified a problem.

“So someone with a Vo2 max of X and an efficiency of 95 per cent then you’ll have to say that no human being can sustain such a high level for so long unless something has changed since you’ve tested them.”"

Why don't you ask Chris Froome to be make all his data from his whole professional career public?

Then we can talk.

Otherwise the whole episode was PR.

 

[Jeroen Swart]

Re: Re:

Well done Sniper for bring this thread back to the reason Froome was doing these tests.

It was to answer 'The Call' of how can Froome win GTs?

That has not been answered.

Actually you and Sniper are making it up as you go along.

Let's go back to the facts from July 2015 before Froome agreed to undergo testing:

"Each set of tests should include a full round of physiological tests which look at V02 max – a topic that has followed Froome since 2013, a calculation of his maximum capacity and his sustainable capacity for certain periods. These tests would allow for independent analysts. Then, according to Tucker, based off the power output from his performances “you would be able to interrogate it for plausibility.”

The test data alone would not be able to prove if a rider was doping or clean. “If this was a court case and your argument was based off a lab test and some SRM files you wouldn’t make it past the opening arguments. The numbers won’t prove doping but what you can do is start to have a better indication of what’s plausible and what’s realistic because things would quickly not add up if there was a problem.

“Let’s say a rider capable of riding a mountain at 420 watts but your testing shows that he would need to be riding at 95 per cent of his own maximum, given his measured VO2 max, to produce that then you will have identified a problem.

“So someone with a Vo2 max of X and an efficiency of 95 per cent then you’ll have to say that no human being can sustain such a high level for so long unless something has changed since you’ve tested them.”"

Why don't you ask Chris Froome to be make all his data from his whole professional career public?

Then we can talk.

Otherwise the whole episode was PR.

You can call it what you like. If it was a PR exercise, then the PR exercise was invented by Tucker, Grappe etc.

You keep trying to close this stable door but the horse has bolted long ago.

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

(snip)
Let's go back to the facts from July 2015 before Froome agreed to undergo testing:
(snip)

That's nice but you just left out the crucial parts of the interview.
The three preceding paragraphs read:

A starting point would be at the beginning of the season when Froome is starting his training, with a second possible test in the build-up towards peak form, so between the Criterium du Dauphine and the Tour de France. Tests later in the season, including the winter, would also help to create a better testing sample.

The reason for multiple tests is simple, Tucker says. The tests carried out by Ed Coyle on Lance Armstrong during the Texan’s career were carried out over wide period of time, “but you could tell from that data and that there were fluctuations based off if he was treated in season or out of season. Even just doing a test is potentially misleading if you don’t get the timing right. You would have to get the test done at exactly the moment when you wanted to analyse the performance, which is to say around the Tour de France.

“But also longitudally, because tracking changes is as important as establishing a single baseline. Otherwise you are in danger of setting up a circular argument.”
(http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/will-independent-testing-work-for-chris-froome/)

So, in sum, a one-time-in-the-season physiological testing is *clearly not* what Ross asked Sky/Froome to do.
In fact, to get a better idea of what Ross did ask for, we can again draw on the same article, a few paragraphs down:

Here are several key areas Froome could be transparent over.

· Several sets of independent lab tests carried out through a season by an independent tester or testing body with no links to Team Sky, British Cycling or a national federation.
· Full disclosure of all medication including TUEs taken and prescribed since 2010 – the date from which Froome joined Team Sky.
· Full power to weight data released to an independent body for analysis – again from 2010 onwards. The data released in 2013 did not complete the picture.
· Conduct a full asthma examination to prove that the use of current medication is required, along with any relevant backdated prescriptions.
· Provide all Biological Passport data to an independent body.
(http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/will-independent-testing-work-for-chris-froome/)

As you'll agree, none of these five points have been met by the testing you and GSK did on Froome.
Now, I'm not saying that that's your fault, because as you say you had a 'mandate' given to you by Froome.
Nonetheless, I'm curious what you think when Froome is quoted in the media as saying "As a clean athlete, what more can I do?"
In your view, is he flat out lying there or should we simply assume he's not the brightest bulb?

(also, in your capacity as a member of SA antidoping, maybe you could address those five points and tell us if you agree or not?)

Moving on, you mention Grappe.
Now, what Grappe did was analyze a set of power files given to him by Sky, but pertaining only to the *post*-Vuelta-2011 period.
Honest question: what were your thoughts when you read about that?
Mine were "Are they taking the absolute piss?"

Back to your work on Froome.
As for the 'independence' of the GSK researchers, the following can still be found on the GSK website:

The GSK Human Performance Lab will be submitting these and additional data for publication in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Team Sky is proud to ride clean and win clean and they were fully behind Froome’s desire to visit the lab.
https://www.google.pl/search?q=The+GSK+Human+Performance+Lab+will+be+submitting+these+and+additional+data+for+publication+in+a+peer-reviewed+scientific+journal.+Team+Sky+%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b-ab&gfe_rd=cr&ei=driwV5WCOOuk8wfJu7PgDA

Don't you think that that is massively inapproriate?

Final thingie: Ironhead Slims just asked you "why continue that day without heart rate measurement?"
How can you possibly avoid answering this question by invoking 'the mandate'? That's like pleading the fifth.
Mind: when you and GSK did the testing on Froome, the Ventoux 2013 file had already been leaked into the press, and so you and everybody involved in the testing knew that (max) heart rate measurements were going to be of increased interest. So again: why continue that day without heart rate measurement?

 

[Merckx index]

Re: Re:

The 4mmol.-1 we know to correlate well for performance of an hour duration...6.3W.kg-1 for 20min is certainly reasonable at the tested weight.

Then even at the 70-71 kg weight he was measured at--and I emphasize again he told Kimmage he was at that weight years before he joined Sky--he was capable of > 6.0 watts/kg. for an hour. Grappe reported the difference between his 20 minute power and 60 minute power was about 0.9 watts/kg, which he emphasized was a normal dropoff. From that, Froome is not simply 6.3 watts/kg at 20 minutes, he’s pushing 7.0 watts/kg. That's not calculated from V02max and efficiency, making assumptions about sustainability, that's directly from the 4 mM power (I used the hot/humid value, but it doesn't make that much difference). And again, that’s at 71kg. At 67 kg, it’s about 7.3 watts/kg.

A 40 minute ride would be in the middle somewhere, say 6.5 watts/kg at 71kg., 6.9 at 67 kg. So long before he joined Sky, he should have been capable of staying with the best dopers in the world on climbs, and after he shed a few more kg., he had the power/weight to climb ADH in < 35 minutes. And as fanciful as that sounds, it's consistent with his self-reported climb up Madone.

Frankly, looking at these tests results, my biggest question--other than, where the he!! was he before 2011?--is why he isn't riding even faster on the road right now? There has been a lot of Clinic speculation that he purposely goes under what he's capable of to avoid raising suspicion even higher than it already is. These test results seem to provide support for that. Plus, perhaps, not a great ability to conserve energy very efficiently over three weeks, which is not a problem when you can destroy the field on the first mountain stages without going all out.