The Froome Files, test data only thread

[acoggan]

Re:

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?

I'm not Jeroen, but the answer is, that can't be determined with certainty from the data provided. In some individuals, maximal lactate steady state occurs at a blood lactate concentration of <4 mmol/L, whereas in others (and more often in cyclists) it occurs at a blood lactate concentration of >4 mmol/L (perhaps even double that).

To further complicate matters: the maximum duration that exercise at maximal lactate steady state also varies between individuals, from ~30 to ~60 (or perhaps even ~70) min.

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.

a) was self-evident before the tests were ever performed.

b) does not in any way logically follow from the data collected in 2015.

 

[acoggan]

Re: Re:

If it was a PR exercise, then the PR exercise was invented by Tucker, Grappe etc.

I'd blame anyone who thinks that such physiological testing can determine whether or not someone is guilty of doping. (Same can be said for those who think that power data hold the key.)

 

[Merckx index]

Re: Re:

a) was self-evident before the tests were ever performed.

No, it wasn't, because we didn't know then--and still don't know now--whether he was doping on the road or before the lab tests. That's why I said, "the Froome that was in the lab". The Froome tested by Swart may or may not have been clean. If he was, the Froome on the road could certainly be clean. But if not, all bets are obviously off.

b) does not in any way logically follow from the data collected in 2015.

The sparse 2007 data do of course support the conclusion. But even without those data, I think it's a stretch to think he could have added 10% or more to his power/weight almost literally overnight.

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

If it was a PR exercise, then the PR exercise was invented by Tucker, Grappe etc.

I'd blame anyone who thinks that such physiological testing can determine whether or not someone is guilty of doping. (Same can be said for those who think that power data hold the key.)

And to those who concluded that by "just losing the fat" turned a very average cyclist into a multiple grand tour winner

 

[gillan1969]

Jeroen

i think this was Froome's inspiration

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QX0r6DsvXAU

 

[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.

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.

Why dont you answer the question about Froome releasing all his race data?

Not trying to close the stable door. Merely pointing that the horse that bolted is doped and was a donkey prior to doping.

Your PR exercise was to murky the water as to whether the horse had an extra leg.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Re: Re:

Why dont you answer the question about Froome releasing all his race data?

Isn't that a question for Froome/Sky?

But let's say Froome/Sky releases the data. Then what?

I'm still waiting for an answer (from anyone really) to the question I posed to Sniper yesterday:

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.

All those things Ross Tucker asked for couldn't answer the question, so please do enlighten us all on what would?

 

[PremierAndrew]

It's simple. There's no way to prove that you are actually clean bar a live camera trained on you with uninterrupted footage 24/7.

The whereabouts system could be improved so that testers can come visit you at any hour of any day as opposed to just a one hour window. That would make microdoping risky as well. But still, corruption would be a potential issue

 

[thehog]

Re:

It's simple. There's no way to prove that you are actually clean bar a live camera trained on you with uninterrupted footage 24/7.

The whereabouts system could be improved so that testers can come visit you at any hour of any day as opposed to just a one hour window. That would make microdoping risky as well. But still, corruption would be a potential issue

Remember Armstrong was going to do a independent program with Don Catlin?

Stapleton reiterated that, "Lance is the most tested athlete in sports history and he is certainly the most tested cyclist in the world since his return to the sport last year evidenced by no fewer than 16 unannounced out-of-competition tests since August all over the world.

"We will continue to do everything we can do to ensure transparency and honesty in his testing results," he added.

One of the cornerstones of Armstrong's comeback was his determination to conduct an open, transparent and comprehensive testing program, to be undertaken on an individual basis with Dr Catlin.

"I really try to seek out the most credible and well respected anti-doping crusader, especially here in the United States," Armstrong said about choosing Dr. Catlin last September at a press conference at Interbike. "It's a level of transparency that I didn't want to leave that box unchecked. So I signed with Don and he has a job to do. It is his job and not my job – I will subject myself to whatever he wants."

Fast forward almost five months and Stapleton's statement explained that, "We have the utmost respect for Don and all he is doing in the fight against doping in sport but we faced a myriad of problems relating to administration, coordination and cost

 

[acoggan]

Re: Re:

a) was self-evident before the tests were ever performed.

No, it wasn't

Yes, it was. That is, he's won the TdF how many times now? You can't do that without possessing fairly well-known physiological attributes, ergo, he must possess them. How he achieved those traits is a completely different question, and one that can't be answer by measuring things like VO2max, efficiency, power, etc.

IOW, it's been a fool's errand or a PR exercise from the get-go, depending on to whom you prescribe the motivation.

 

[Merckx index]

Re: Re:

But let's say Froome/Sky releases the data. Then what?

Then we find out what Sky knew and when they knew it. If their numbers are close to what Swart has found, then Sky has to answer why they had this monster all this time and yet were probably about to cut him in 2011. If their numbers are not close to what Swart reports, then why? Doping is certainly one among the several possible explanations.

I’d frankly find it a boon if we could just get a consistent story on Froome’s weight. Has he really been in the 70-72 kg range in his Barlo and Sky years? Grappe says he was at 68 from 2012 on, so I think he must have been no higher than 70-72 for several years preceding that, but it would be nice to have actual records. If that is the case, and that 2007 FAX is correct on his absolute V02max, then he almost certainly should have performed better than he did, and Sky should have realized the extraordinary talent that they had. They ought to be grilled on how they missed this, or if they didn't, why they still didn't think he was worth developing.

OTOH, maybe he didn’t lose that weight, or did, but initially lost power more or less proportionally. So his power/weight ratio prior to 2011 wasn't a lot different from what it was according to the 2007 FAX. Sky’s data ought to tell us if this is the case. If it is the case, then how did he became so much better? How much was a result of weight loss and how much was a result of power increase? Sky’s data ought to shed a lot of light on this.

At that point, we have a good idea of how much he improved pre- vs. post-2011, and we can start asking how plausible it is that such a change occurred clean. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: if Sky or any other team is really dedicated to developing cycling champions, they should want to know exactly how Froome improved so much in so short a time. They should want to bottle this and sell it. It makes no sense to me that they wouldn’t care. Maybe they have a secret, not involving doping, they don’t want to share with anyone else, but at least if they would furnish the numbers we could gauge just how powerful this secret has to be.

Frankly, I applaud Jeroen Swart for what he has published. I don't agree with those who insist it tells us nothing we didn't know before. It does move us closer to understanding the course of Froome's career. The next big piece is the pre-2011 data. Let's see them.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Re:

It's simple. There's no way to prove that you are actually clean bar a live camera trained on you with uninterrupted footage 24/7.

The Frooman Show

The whereabouts system could be improved so that testers can come visit you at any hour of any day as opposed to just a one hour window. That would make microdoping risky as well. But still, corruption would be a potential issue

Well I was asking the question about post-hoc analysis, but this would be impractical to implement.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Re: Re:

But let's say Froome/Sky releases the data. Then what?

Then we find out what Sky knew and when they knew it. If their numbers are close to what Swart has found, then Sky has to answer why they had this monster all this time and yet were probably about to cut him in 2011. If their numbers are not close to what Swart reports, then why? Doping is certainly one among the several possible explanations.

IOW it still won't answer the doping question with any level of certainty.

I've no particular problem with more data/information being made available, I'm only pointing out that it will never answer the question on doping status.

 

[Merckx index]

Re: Re:

Yes, it was. That is, he's won the TdF how many times now? You can't do that without possessing fairly well-known physiological attributes, ergo, he must possess them. How he achieved those traits is a completely different question, and one that can't be answer by measuring things like VO2max, efficiency, power, etc.

IOW, it's been a fool's errand or a PR exercise from the get-go, depending on to whom you prescribe the motivation.

Go back and re-read my statement that you responded to:

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

It was NOT self-evident that that would be the case. If he had been doping while racing, and was off the juice in the lab, then the Froome tested in the lab would not have appeared capable of what he did on the road. That was what Ross was referring to. In your terms, he would not have possessed the “fairly well-known physiological attributes” IN THE LAB. Just as the LA that Coyle tested in the lab actually out-performed on the road what the test results indicated he was capable of doing, though perhaps not by a suspiciously large margin.

You seem to regard this as an all-or-none issue, either someone has the requisite attributes, or he doesn't. Even in a world without doping, that isn't necessarily the case, and it certainly isn't the case when the possibility of doping comes into the picture.

IOW it still won't answer the doping question with any level of certainty.

I've no particular problem with more data/information being made available, I'm only pointing out that it will never answer the question on doping status.

In science, big questions are rarely answered directly, with a single all-or-none experiment. In fact, frequently no one has a clue how to answer these questions, so science begins by answering smaller, more manageable ones. And lo and behold, out of those answers often, eventually, comes the answer to the bigger question.

Not to imply that Froome's doping status is a major scientific mystery, but the same applies. The more data we can see from Froome, the clearer our picture of him will be. It's generally unwise to use the word "never" in reference to science.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Re: Re:

In science, big questions are rarely answered directly, with a single all-or-none experiment. In fact, frequently no one has a clue how to answer these questions, so science begins by answering smaller, more manageable ones. And lo and behold, out of those answers often, eventually, comes the answer to the bigger question.

Not to imply that Froome's doping status is a major scientific mystery, but the same applies. The more data we can see from Froome, the clearer our picture of him will be. It's generally unwise to use the word "never" in reference to science.

I suppose with minds as sharp as Vayer's on the case, the mystery will be solved in a jiffy. :lol:

 

[TourOfSardinia]

Re: Re:

In science, big questions are rarely answered directly, with a single all-or-none experiment. In fact, frequently no one has a clue how to answer these questions, so science begins by answering smaller, more manageable ones. And lo and behold, out of those answers often, eventually, comes the answer to the bigger question.

Not to imply that Froome's doping status is a major scientific mystery, but the same applies. The more data we can see from Froome, the clearer our picture of him will be. It's generally unwise to use the word "never" in reference to science.

I suppose with minds as sharp as Vayer's on the case, the mystery will be solved in a jiffy. :lol:

now that's a non-sequitur if there ever was one.

 

[gillan1969]

Re: Re:

Yes, it was. That is, he's won the TdF how many times now? You can't do that without possessing fairly well-known physiological attributes, ergo, he must possess them. How he achieved those traits is a completely different question, and one that can't be answer by measuring things like VO2max, efficiency, power, etc.

IOW, it's been a fool's errand or a PR exercise from the get-go, depending on to whom you prescribe the motivation.

Go back and re-read my statement that you responded to:

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

It was NOT self-evident that that would be the case. If he had been doping while racing, and was off the juice in the lab, then the Froome tested in the lab would not have appeared capable of what he did on the road. That was what Ross was referring to. In your terms, he would not have possessed the “fairly well-known physiological attributes” IN THE LAB. Just as the LA that Coyle tested in the lab actually out-performed on the road what the test results indicated he was capable of doing, though perhaps not by a suspiciously large margin.

You seem to regard this as an all-or-none issue, either someone has the requisite attributes, or he doesn't. Even in a world without doping, that isn't necessarily the case, and it certainly isn't the case when the possibility of doping comes into the picture.

IOW it still won't answer the doping question with any level of certainty.

I've no particular problem with more data/information being made available, I'm only pointing out that it will never answer the question on doping status.

In science, big questions are rarely answered directly, with a single all-or-none experiment. In fact, frequently no one has a clue how to answer these questions, so science begins by answering smaller, more manageable ones. And lo and behold, out of those answers often, eventually, comes the answer to the bigger question.

Not to imply that Froome's doping status is a major scientific mystery, but the same applies. The more data we can see from Froome, the clearer our picture of him will be. It's generally unwise to use the word "never" in reference to science.

I think to be fair it was self evident...which is why the whole thing is a charade

the testing was at Froome's behest to ensure that it was so

you wouldn't organise all this and not make sure you were 'on message'

 

[acoggan]

Re: Re:

In science, big questions are rarely answered directly, with a single all-or-none experiment. In fact, frequently no one has a clue how to answer these questions, so science begins by answering smaller, more manageable ones. And lo and behold, out of those answers often, eventually, comes the answer to the bigger question.

Not to imply that Froome's doping status is a major scientific mystery, but the same applies. The more data we can see from Froome, the clearer our picture of him will be. It's generally unwise to use the word "never" in reference to science.

I suppose with minds as sharp as Vayer's on the case, the mystery will be solved in a jiffy. :lol:

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[acoggan]

Re: Re:

You seem to regard this as an all-or-none issue

No, it's an all-or-all issue. You don't win the TdF without possessing certain physiological characteristics, so testing someone just a few weeks later doesn't really tell you anything you don't already know.

To make a not-very-bold prediction: the winner of the TdF for the next 10 y will have an FTP of at least 6 W/kg, which will be achieved courtesy of a VO2max of at least 80 mL/min/kg, the ability to sustain at least 85% of that for a prolonged period of time, and a gross efficiency (at high exercise intensities) of at least 22%. What can't be predicted or ascertained from such data is whether they came about these traits naturally (i.e., via genetics and training), or via doping.

 

[poupou]

Re: Re:

In science, big questions are rarely answered directly, with a single all-or-none experiment. In fact, frequently no one has a clue how to answer these questions, so science begins by answering smaller, more manageable ones. And lo and behold, out of those answers often, eventually, comes the answer to the bigger question.

Not to imply that Froome's doping status is a major scientific mystery, but the same applies. The more data we can see from Froome, the clearer our picture of him will be. It's generally unwise to use the word "never" in reference to science.

I suppose with minds as sharp as Vayer's on the case, the mystery will be solved in a jiffy. :lol:

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Do believers have thin minds too?

 

[acoggan]

Re: Re:

In science, big questions are rarely answered directly, with a single all-or-none experiment. In fact, frequently no one has a clue how to answer these questions, so science begins by answering smaller, more manageable ones. And lo and behold, out of those answers often, eventually, comes the answer to the bigger question.

Not to imply that Froome's doping status is a major scientific mystery, but the same applies. The more data we can see from Froome, the clearer our picture of him will be. It's generally unwise to use the word "never" in reference to science.

I suppose with minds as sharp as Vayer's on the case, the mystery will be solved in a jiffy. :lol:

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Do believers have thin minds too?

Dull minds can be found everywhere.

 

[gillan1969]

Re: Re:

You seem to regard this as an all-or-none issue

No, it's an all-or-all issue. You don't win the TdF without possessing certain physiological characteristics, so testing someone just a few weeks later doesn't really tell you anything you don't already know.

To make a not-very-bold prediction: the winner of the TdF for the next 10 y will have an FTP of at least 6 W/kg, which will be achieved courtesy of a VO2max of at least 80 mL/min/kg, the ability to sustain at least 85% of that for a prolonged period of time, and a gross efficiency (at high exercise intensities) of at least 22%. What can't be predicted or ascertained from such data is whether they came about these traits naturally (i.e., via genetics and training), or via doping.

but this is where we need to step back from Swart's work...

what we do know is that pre-transformation he didn't look like he was "naturally" imbued with these characteristics...with NO result pre-Vuelta indicating he was one of cycling's biggest physical talents

all we still have is the sketchy fax......(and following on..badzilla and/or fat...both if which are rather tenuous)

 

[PremierAndrew]

Re: Re:

It's simple. There's no way to prove that you are actually clean bar a live camera trained on you with uninterrupted footage 24/7.

The Frooman Show

The whereabouts system could be improved so that testers can come visit you at any hour of any day as opposed to just a one hour window. That would make microdoping risky as well. But still, corruption would be a potential issue

Well I was asking the question about post-hoc analysis, but this would be impractical to implement.

Correct me if im wrong but there are potentially other problems with post hoc analysis. It would be a good way to flag performances but would only flag performances where theres been a sudden change. Therefore it wouldnt necessarily flag performances where the athlete has doped every time and not changed their program for a major event (ie not going full *** just for the olympics but going full *** every time)
Furthermore it would flag up performances where an athlete has legitimately had a super good day, with a lot of factors lining up perfectly on a given day

 

[sniper]

I don't think vayer would 've continued the day without a max heart rate measurement, nor would he have claimed the discrepancy between weight and BMI on the Fax is irrelevant, nor would he have claimed that Froome had the engine all along and just lost the fat on the basis of dodgy fax data.
Just saying, his mind is arguably sharper than the minds of the researchers involved in this testing.

 

[thehog]

Re:

I don't think vayer would 've continued the day without a max heart rate measurement, nor would he have claimed the discrepancy between weight and BMI on the Fax is irrelevant, nor would he have claimed that Froome had the engine all along and just lost the fat on the basis of dodgy fax data.

Just saying, his mind is arguably sharper than the minds of the researchers involved in this testing.

Yes, I believe we've been here before....

Coyle’s 2005 paper provided a clear response to doubters. From 1993 to his comeback year of 1999, Armstrong was tested on a special stationary bicycle in Coyle’s lab in Austin, Armstrong’s hometown. That data, Coyle said in his paper, showed that Armstrong’s dramatic improvement largely came from a long-term increase in his muscle efficiency combined with weight loss from his bout with cancer.