The Froome Files, test data only thread

[thehog]

Re:

djpbaltimore:
For example, I am not responsible for everything written on my university's webpage.

But this is not just 'anything written on the GSK webpage'. This is quite a specific quote relating to the Froome testing. There is a direct link made by that quote between Froome's testing at the GSK lab on the one hand, and 'Sky being proud to ride clean' on the other.
Here it is again: Team Sky is proud to ride clean and win clean and they were fully behind Froome’s desire to visit the lab
I'm frankly baffled by it. The more so considering one of the GSK guys works for UKAD.
The quote suggests some kind of direct link between Sky and GSK. (And recall in this context Brailsford's statement that the GSK researchers were old friends of his.)
Anybody with a grain of scientific ethos should have big question marks here.

To the bolded; Brailsford said that he knew them from the EIS - English Institute of Sport, they had a partnership with GSK:

“Chris felt he wanted to do the physiological testing and of course the important thing about that was that it was going to be independently done. They did it with the GSK guys. I know the [GSK] guys from the EIS [English Institute of Sport], they’re a good bunch of guys. The idea was that for it to be independent. The team, we would step away from it. Otherwise people would go, ‘You’re just colluding’.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/cycling/chris-froome/12028045/Chris-Froome-test-results-may-still-not-convince-sceptics-he-has-not-doped-Sir-Dave-Brailsford-admits.html

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

...
If the max heart rate was 200 or 165 it doesn't say much at all, next to nothing.

The only interest is matching it with the leaked video. Which Swart has already stated that they captured sub maximal HR. If you drew a liner progression line through that data to predict max heart rate then it would be similar to what was seen in the video.

I think based on that fact is discounts anything nefarious with the lack of that specific data point.

I could be wrong, Swart may have put a banana skin under the HR strap and it slipped off on purpose but I doubt it.

fair points hog. I'll let this rest.

My embafflement over the GSK quote remains. And I'm surprised some are willing to step over that so lightly.
The fact that such things are taken so lightly doesn't bode well for the integrity of this whole industry.

 

[acoggan]

Re:

@acoggan:
Your thought process is flawed at the very first step, the step where for some reason you take as a fact that indeed they weren't able to measure his maximal heart rate)

Yet one more example of your pseudo-scientist's lack of understanding of the peer review process: scientific research went from being a public to a private enterprise over a century ago, when you no longer had to demonstrate/replicate your findings in front of, e.g., the Royal Society of London. From that point forward, reviewers have had to accept author's claims essentially at face value (at least absent any glaring contradiction or discrepancies).

Of course, what's truly sad here is how convoluted and illogical your position is, as should be obvious to anyone who spends even a moment considering the issue. I mean think about it - which of the two scenarios seems more likely:

1. Froome's max HR was indeed measured, but Jeroen ET AL were willing to engage in a large conspiracy, to conceal this bit of irrelevant data while at the same revealing everything else, or

2. The strap slipped?

 

[sniper]

what large conspiracy are you on about?

are all those tidbits of data conveniently left out of environmental and phramaceutical studies cases of "large conspiracies"? of course not.

if you like it or not, scientific fraud is par for the course for procycling (Coyle, Vrijman, etc.) and Team Sky (Henao, Hayles, Bilharzia, etc.).

I'm (not) surprised to see you step over that GSK quote so lightly.

Anyway, as I already conceded, you and thehog and KB have convincingly argued that max heart rate would probably not be anything worth concealing. So we can move on.

 

[gillan1969]

Re: Re:

@acoggan:
Your thought process is flawed at the very first step, the step where for some reason you take as a fact that indeed they weren't able to measure his maximal heart rate)

Yet one more example of your pseudo-scientist's lack of understanding of the peer review process: scientific research went from being a public to a private enterprise over a century ago, when you no longer had to demonstrate/replicate your findings in front of, e.g., the Royal Society of London. From that point forward, reviewers have had to accept author's claims essentially at face value (at least absent any glaring contradiction or discrepancies).

Of course, what's truly sad here is how convoluted and illogical your position is, as should be obvious to anyone who spends even a moment considering the issue. I mean think about it - which of the two scenarios seems more likely:

1. Froome's max HR was indeed measured, but Jeroen ET AL were willing to engage in a large conspiracy, to conceal this bit of irrelevant data while at the same revealing everything else, or

2. The strap slipped?

which demonstrates the futility of the whole exercise when you only have one test...if there were more tests then it wouldn't slip every time...

 

[thehog]

Here’s the thing about CoI, compliance, audit etc. It’s not unusual for example that KPMG provides financial auditing responsibilities for two competing firms. Let’s say Microsoft and Apple both use KPMG to sign off and audit their financial records. This is not to say that KPMG could share information between the two bodies, it’s possible they could. However they apply safeguards in place which pertain to data privacy etc. and all of those safeguards are published up front and later audited.

So if we look to this examples let’s just say Sky has a relationship with GSK. It pays them to test their athletes. Froome then of his own accord uses GSK, what would this mean? Absolutely nothing. As long as the relationship between Sky and GSK is separate from Froome and GSK. In this case Sky do not have a relationship with SKY. Therefore Froome making the approach and conducting his testing with them is not unusual. Froome could have done it in his basement with some unknown guy from across the road – they would have brought its own host of problems.

My issues are more that Esquire magazine were involved and that Moore influenced some of the statements from the testing “He just lost the fat” etc. and turned what otherwise would have been (could have been) a very interesting series of testing of a period of time into a celebrity outing based on Frome “being clean” which is a long way from what the testing was showing.

The other concern is that a sport scientist (though not fault of their own) have make a living. So off the back of having a recognised “name” they sell other goods and services, such as coaching services and sports supplements. That is the true conflict in this scenario. They the goal of selling personal services may erode independence in these types of tests with well known sportspersons.

 

[djpbaltimore]

Re:

djpbaltimore:
For example, I am not responsible for everything written on my university's webpage.

But this is not just 'anything written on the GSK webpage'. This is quite a specific quote relating to the Froome testing. There is a direct link made by that quote between Froome's testing at the GSK lab on the one hand, and 'Sky being proud to ride clean' on the other.
Here it is again: Team Sky is proud to ride clean and win clean and they were fully behind Froome’s desire to visit the lab
I'm frankly baffled by it. The more so considering one of the GSK guys works for UKAD.
The quote suggests some kind of direct link between Sky and GSK. (And recall in this context Brailsford's statement that the GSK researchers were old friends of his.)
Anybody with a grain of scientific ethos should have big question marks here.

That is a factual statement. It is not listed as one of the author's opinions. Nor was the statement written by any of the actual authors, so it unfair to pin it to them. But if you want to take it up with the editor, then by all means. People will have personal opinions about their research, but unless you can actually show that these biases interfered with the scientific process, it is not fraud. Anybody with a grain of scientific ethos would not throw around the terms fraud and pseudoscience so liberally IMO.

 

[gillan1969]

forget max hrm...................

a couple of more basic questions......

GSK - "Chris gave an undertaking that he would carry out such tests and the visit marks the start of a partnership between Chris and the HPL planned to support Chris through the 2016 Olympic Games in Rio de Janeiro."

What support was this and do we know anything about it? A partnership no less.....I will make a leap of logic and suggest there has been no further contact..

and

Froome - “The main objective for me coming to the lab was to get my baseline data and an understanding of what enables me to be able to perform the way I do on the bike. This is where I could find the half a percent that I need to win a race. It could be the difference between winning and losing.”

does Froome get no scientific support from SKY at all? Nothing from 2010 to 2015? - no baseline data at all... What do all these guys at sky do...work with everyone except the team leader??

it's the genesis of the testing which is odd...not the tests....

 

[gillan1969]

Re: Re:

djpbaltimore:
For example, I am not responsible for everything written on my university's webpage.

But this is not just 'anything written on the GSK webpage'. This is quite a specific quote relating to the Froome testing. There is a direct link made by that quote between Froome's testing at the GSK lab on the one hand, and 'Sky being proud to ride clean' on the other.
Here it is again: Team Sky is proud to ride clean and win clean and they were fully behind Froome’s desire to visit the lab
I'm frankly baffled by it. The more so considering one of the GSK guys works for UKAD.
The quote suggests some kind of direct link between Sky and GSK. (And recall in this context Brailsford's statement that the GSK researchers were old friends of his.)
Anybody with a grain of scientific ethos should have big question marks here.

That is a factual statement. It is not listed as one of the author's opinions. Nor was the statement written by any of the actual authors, so it unfair to pin it to them. But if you want to take it up with the editor, then by all means. People will have personal opinions about their research, but unless you can actually show that these biases interfered with the scientific process, it is not fraud. Anybody with a grain of scientific ethos would not throw around the terms fraud and pseudoscience so liberally IMO.

The GSK sentence quoted above is written in the first person and then the third....it infers a GSK opinion about Team Sky....

 

[djpbaltimore]

Re: Re:

The GSK sentence quoted above is written in the first person and then the third....it infers a GSK opinion about Team Sky....

GSK didn't write the paper.... Their institutional opinion is irrelevant in this situation as I have already stated. What matters is the authors who carried out the research and wrote the paper.

 

[thehog]

forget max hrm...................

a couple of more basic questions......

GSK - "Chris gave an undertaking that he would carry out such tests and the visit marks the start of a partnership between Chris and the HPL planned to support Chris through the 2016 Olympic Games in Rio de Janeiro."

What support was this and do we know anything about it? A partnership no less.....I will make a leap of logic and suggest there has been no further contact..

and

Froome - “The main objective for me coming to the lab was to get my baseline data and an understanding of what enables me to be able to perform the way I do on the bike. This is where I could find the half a percent that I need to win a race. It could be the difference between winning and losing.”

does Froome get no scientific support from SKY at all? Nothing from 2010 to 2015? - no baseline data at all... What do all these guys at sky do...work with everyone except the team leader??

it's the genesis of the testing which is odd...not the tests....

It was based on the heat and humidity of Rio which the test tested and made a conclusion at the end of the paper.

 

[gillan1969]

Re: Re:

The GSK sentence quoted above is written in the first person and then the third....it infers a GSK opinion about Team Sky....

GSK didn't write the paper.... Their institutional opinion is irrelevant in this situation as I have already stated. What matters is the authors who carried out the research and wrote the paper.

i think therein lies the problem with this thread....

its only irrelevant for the very narrow scientific audience...

for the rest of us however.....

 

[sniper]

forget max hrm...................

a couple of more basic questions......

GSK - "Chris gave an undertaking that he would carry out such tests and the visit marks the start of a partnership between Chris and the HPL planned to support Chris through the 2016 Olympic Games in Rio de Janeiro."

What support was this and do we know anything about it? A partnership no less.....I will make a leap of logic and suggest there has been no further contact..

and

Froome - “The main objective for me coming to the lab was to get my baseline data and an understanding of what enables me to be able to perform the way I do on the bike. This is where I could find the half a percent that I need to win a race. It could be the difference between winning and losing.”

does Froome get no scientific support from SKY at all? Nothing from 2010 to 2015? - no baseline data at all... What do all these guys at sky do...work with everyone except the team leader??

it's the genesis of the testing which is odd...not the tests....

interesting.

GSK going big.

 

[sniper]

More pseudoscience from that GSK webpage. Van Someren rewriting history:

through some of the physiological assessment we’ve conducted today, we’re able to pin-point exactly what it is that helps him to achieve those performances.” (Ken van Someren)

no you're not, Ken.

And the word 'independent' has officially become void of meaning in the context of prosport:

"Chris is really keen to get an external or independent assessment of his physiological capacity and performance. We’re able to provide exactly that – independent data."

 

[King Boonen]

forget max hrm...................

a couple of more basic questions......

GSK - "Chris gave an undertaking that he would carry out such tests and the visit marks the start of a partnership between Chris and the HPL planned to support Chris through the 2016 Olympic Games in Rio de Janeiro."

What support was this and do we know anything about it? A partnership no less.....I will make a leap of logic and suggest there has been no further contact..

and

Froome - “The main objective for me coming to the lab was to get my baseline data and an understanding of what enables me to be able to perform the way I do on the bike. This is where I could find the half a percent that I need to win a race. It could be the difference between winning and losing.”

does Froome get no scientific support from SKY at all? Nothing from 2010 to 2015? - no baseline data at all... What do all these guys at sky do...work with everyone except the team leader??

it's the genesis of the testing which is odd...not the tests....

interesting.

GSK going big.

Going big? 2015 revenue was £23.9 billion for GSK.

 

[acoggan]

Re: Re:

which demonstrates the futility of the whole exercise when you only have one test

Team Sky should have listened to me when they called the evening of the 2015 press conference.

 

[acoggan]

it's the genesis of the testing which is odd

Not in the least. Froome didn't appreciate being accused of doping at that 2015 press conference, and it was suggested (incorrectly) that physiological data could help prove his innocence. Team Sky weighed the issue and solicited opinions from people like me (at least I assume that they spoke with others), and ultimately decided to try to remain at arm's length. Froome proceeded on his own anyway, and sought to learn something that might help him in Rio in the process.

 

[thehog]

it's the genesis of the testing which is odd

Not in the least. Froome didn't appreciate being accused of doping at that 2015 press conference, and it was suggested (incorrectly) that physiological data could help prove his innocence. Team Sky weighed the issue and solicited opinions from people like me (at least I assume that they spoke with others), and ultimately decided to try to remain at arm's length. Froome proceeded on his own anyway, and sought to learn something that might help him in Rio in the process.

To this point, if the objective was to prove Froome was clean (or close to certain), the approach would have been very different. I don't think it would have consisted of milking the 2007 data as virtue and attempting to correlate it to test data 8 years later (with nothing in between). That's why I think the entire episode smells a little. The Esquire/Moore objective looks a lot different than what the one off test could ever achieve.

If Froome was clean and wanted to set up a set of tests to prove that cleanliness I think we would have been the passport along with other blood tests over a period of time. Pre-Vuleta data from Sky would have helped also along with an expert summary of that data and blood results. Alas even that may have opened up more questions than answers.

Perhaps a topic for a new thread - how would you prove you are clean?

 

[sniper]

That is a problem caused primarily by UCIs reluctance to make testing independent.

 

[bigcog]

Perhaps a topic for a new thread - how would you prove you are clean?

Plainly you can't, it's an exercise in futility, particularly if you are trying to convince people who are firm in the belief that you aren't clean. Whether that is the case who knows. The more the data/information you put out there, the more you fan the flames, no doubt some data will be misinterpreted either accidentally or wilfully. As a competitor the best tactic whether you're clean or not is to keep stum and not release any data, like many of them do.

 

[thehog]

Perhaps a topic for a new thread - how would you prove you are clean?

Plainly you can't, it's an exercise in futility, particularly if you are trying to convince people who are firm in the belief that you aren't clean. Whether that is the case who knows. The more the data/information you put out there, the more you fan the flames, no doubt some data will be misinterpreted either accidentally or wilfully. As a competitor the best tactic whether you're clean or not is to keep stum and not release any data, like many of them do.

No need to be so defeatist. Why be afraid of the data?

You’re just holding the current view of Sky, which is to show nothing but if they absolutely have to show something it will be modified to fit with key figures like watts p/kg tapered down (ref: PSM 2015). The Grappe overview was similar, no pre-2011 data, just Froome on a handful of climbs – ie limited analysis.

More information can only help the audience understand more. Think baseball, think cricket and American football. They are full of statistics of all sorts of variety and the audiences becomes highly educated with respect to each of the sports. Moneyball is a good example of statistics can turn into winning edge when made available.

Dumbing everything down to winning and losing really doesn’t help anyone and just makes the whole thing look more suspicious.

You need to be more brave and ask for more data and Sky need to show leadership this area and start producing sound data to assist their audiences rather than just “marginal gains” stories via select journalists like Richard Moore.

 

[DanielSong39]

If you ask for data - all you'll get is fake data claiming that Froome only generated 5.8 w/kg on La Pierre Saint-Martin while maintaining a constant heart rate during 1000+ watt outbursts.

I think the best course of action is to enjoy watching the races while accepting the sport for what it is.

 

[thehog]

Re:

If you ask for data - all you'll get is fake data claiming that Froome only generated 5.8 w/kg on La Pierre Saint-Martin while maintaining a constant heart rate during 1000+ watt outbursts.

I think the best course of action is to enjoy watching the races while accepting the sport for what it is.

Not insurmountable, the UCI regulates the bikes they can regulate the powermeter.

Generic head units, docked after each stage to upload data or alternatively they are already sending the GPS data via the back of the saddle dongle. The power data via ANT or Bluetooth can be transmitted this way also. The only issue is weight, which is the Shroud of Turin - might need a daily 'weigh in' for that one.

 

[DanielSong39]

It's insurmountable if Sky/U.S. Postal/Banesto regulates UCI. Look at how UCI makes its decisions - after a while you start to see the pattern.

But, at the end of the day, it's still fun to watch - and that's why I'm still here.

 

[gillan1969]

it's the genesis of the testing which is odd

Not in the least. Froome didn't appreciate being accused of doping at that 2015 press conference, and it was suggested (incorrectly) that physiological data could help prove his innocence. Team Sky weighed the issue and solicited opinions from people like me (at least I assume that they spoke with others), and ultimately decided to try to remain at arm's length. Froome proceeded on his own anyway, and sought to learn something that might help him in Rio in the process.

so...let's get this straight...Froome seeks to prove he's not doping by instructing tests that can't prove he's not doping...

move aside Einstein

...mind you at least he has his spinmiester in Moore...