The Froome Files, test data only thread

[Jeroen Swart]

Re: Re:

...

Sniper, this is where you are fundamentally wrong. And once again you resort to thinly veiled accusations of impropriety. You were challenged on this 2 days ago but immediately disappeared, only to wait until the heat was off before coming back to follow the same modus.

Your frame of reference leads you to assume that I pretend there's nothing to see.
...

Well if you state that Sky "gave all data to Grappe", I can tell you they didn't. Weren't you aware? Honest question.

And if you maintain the pre-Vuelta data are irrelevant anyway, why didn't they give them to Grappe?

I also recall you stating in the podcast last year that "there is absolutely nothing on Sky".
Are you standing by that statement? To me, in light of pretty clearcut evidence that Sky have been lying about a variety of incriminating things, then stating that "there is absolutely nothing on Sky" to me indeed equals 'pretending there's nothing to see'.

Careful; Sky only gave 2 years worth to Grappe. From the Vuelta 2011 to the Tour 2013:

Team Sky has given French newspaper L'Equipe and respected French physiologist Frederic Grappe access to two years of Chris Froome's power data, with Grappe saying that the Tour de France leader's power data indicates that his performances are consistent.

Speaking to Equipe about Froome's data, Grappe suggested that Froome's power indicate that his performances were consistent during 2011-2013 and similar to other riders he has studied.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/team-sky-releases-froomes-power-data/

I am perfectly happy to concede that i should not have used the word "All".

As to the rest of your post: What is it that you are trying to say?

Per my post to Sniper: What do you hypothesise and what will the data tell you?

 

[thehog]

I was just making sure the facts are correct per the data provided on the Grappe review, that is all. Often in these cases, it is what is left out not what is included that draws interest.

Important to have a confidence coefficient in this type of analysis.

In more simple terms;

If you collected daily readings for the average temperature in Las Vegas from 2011-2013 and it resulted in a figure of 45c, what would the average temperature be between 2007 and 2011, if you only have a single reading of 45c from one day in 2007 (and nothing else)?

Would it be 45c?

No. You would need to daily data (or close to) for the period between 2007 and 2011 to have a reliable reading.

 

[Jeroen Swart]

I was just making sure the facts are correct per the data provided on the Grappe review, that is all. Often in these cases, it is what is left out not what is included that draws interest.

Important to have a confidence coefficient in this type of analysis.

In more simple terms;

If you collected daily readings for the average temperature in Las Vegas from 2011-2013 and it resulted in a figure of 45c, what would the average temperature be between 2007 and 2011, if you only have one reading of 45c from 2007, what would the average temperature reading be for that period?

Would it be 45c?

No. You would need to daily data (or close to) for the period between 2007 and 2011 to have a reliable reading.

Absolutely.

But once again: What will it show you?

 

[thehog]

I was just making sure the facts are correct per the data provided on the Grappe review, that is all. Often in these cases, it is what is left out not what is included that draws interest.

Important to have a confidence coefficient in this type of analysis.

In more simple terms;

If you collected daily readings for the average temperature in Las Vegas from 2011-2013 and it resulted in a figure of 45c, what would the average temperature be between 2007 and 2011, if you only have one reading of 45c from 2007, what would the average temperature reading be for that period?

Would it be 45c?

No. You would need to daily data (or close to) for the period between 2007 and 2011 to have a reliable reading.

Absolutely.

But once again: What will it show you?

It would tell you for one day in 2007 that the average temperature was 45c.

It would also show you that for the period from 2011 to 2013 that the average was also 45c.

You could then draw a straight line correlation between 2007 to 2011 and say with a degree of confidence that the average temperature has not changed in that intervening period between 2007 to 2011.

We are all good for now.

However; someone comes along and shows you video evidence of the intervening period of weather news reports where the temperature was well below 45c during that period. In fact in some cases it was below zero. In fact the more you watch you notice that up to August 2011 the weather was around 10c then all of sudden, overnight the temperature shot up to 45c in September 2011.

What do we determine now?

 

[King Boonen]

Come on guys, this is not the test data. Please take this to the Froome thread or whichever is appropriate but this thread was set up specifically for the test data.

 

[DanielSong39]

My take is that the test data is about as fake as pro wrestling.

I think an independent analysis showed that Froome pulled 7+w/kg on La Pierre Saint-Martin in 2015. That at least passes the eye test.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

My favorite part of all the "data" is that on One of the most suspicous performances the Heart rate monitor was under an anomaly lag or was not working at all. This is classic. What sports research would put their name / stamp on something when the data was not reliable?

:lol:

 

[acoggan]

My favorite part of all the "data" is that on One of the most suspicous performances the Heart rate monitor was under an anomaly lag or was not working at all. This is classic. What sports research would put their name / stamp on something when the data was not reliable?

:lol:

If you've ever conducted any research using exercising humans, you'd realize that stuff like this happens all the time.

Moreover, as has been pointed out before, the heart rate data are essentially irrelevant.

IOW, you're naively barking up the wrong tree.

 

[Irondan]

My favorite part of all the "data" is that on One of the most suspicous performances the Heart rate monitor was under an anomaly lag or was not working at all. This is classic. What sports research would put their name / stamp on something when the data was not reliable?

:lol:

If you've ever conducted any research using exercising humans, you'd realize that stuff like this happens all the time.

Moreover, as has been pointed out before, the heart rate data are essentially irrelevant.

IOW, you're naively barking up the wrong tree.

Agreed, I think we can put the heart rate data issue to rest. It has already been hashed out and agreed by most that the missing heart rate data is irrelevant to the findings of the larger test.

 

[thehog]

My favorite part of all the "data" is that on One of the most suspicous performances the Heart rate monitor was under an anomaly lag or was not working at all. This is classic. What sports research would put their name / stamp on something when the data was not reliable?

:lol:

If you've ever conducted any research using exercising humans, you'd realize that stuff like this happens all the time.

Moreover, as has been pointed out before, the heart rate data are essentially irrelevant.

IOW, you're naively barking up the wrong tree.

Agreed, I think we can put the heart rate data issue to rest. It has already been hashed out and agreed by most that the missing heart rate data is irrelevant to the findings of the larger test.

Slight amend, the data is not irrelevant per se. Its that the submaximal heart rate recordings are in the report and its fairly straight forward to predict what the max heart rate would be with a straight line correlation.

Added to this heart rate on its own is unique to the individual. So whether its x or y doesn't really matter. The only interest held was the comparison to the leaked video. And because we have the submaximal data the predicted max would fairly much line up with the footage.

 

[Irondan]

My favorite part of all the "data" is that on One of the most suspicous performances the Heart rate monitor was under an anomaly lag or was not working at all. This is classic. What sports research would put their name / stamp on something when the data was not reliable?

:lol:

If you've ever conducted any research using exercising humans, you'd realize that stuff like this happens all the time.

Moreover, as has been pointed out before, the heart rate data are essentially irrelevant.

IOW, you're naively barking up the wrong tree.

Agreed, I think we can put the heart rate data issue to rest. It has already been hashed out and agreed by most that the missing heart rate data is irrelevant to the findings of the larger test.

Just to correct, the data is not irrelevant. It just that the submaximal heart rate is in the report and its fairly straight forward to predict what the max heart rate would be with a straight line correlation.

Added to this heart rate on its own is unique to the individual. So whether its x or y doesn't really matter. The only interest held was the comparison to the leaked video. And because we have the submaximal data the predicted max would fairly much line up with the footage.

Thanks for the correction hog, it wasn't my intention to dismiss it. I would just like the conversation to move forward and discussing the heart rate data again puts us in another circular narrative.

 

[Merckx index]

Re: Re:

We can see from the 2007 data that he already had the ability to produce the required power output.

Analysing the data from pre 2011 will demonstrate either:

a) an inability to deliver the same output in competition

OR

b) an inability to deliver the same output in training AND competition

OR

c) an inability to reproduce the performances reliably.

None of the above will tell you why that changed. It doesn't tell the story.

Suppose the pre-2011 power files consistently reveal power much less than what the 2007 FAX claims. Wouldn’t that tend to cast doubt on the veracity of that 2007 data? I’m not accusing anyone of intentionally fabricating those data, but if you have that one data point in 2007 contradicted by reams of data since, wouldn’t one begin to question the 2007 data?

In that scenario, which is more likely: a consistent inability to match lab results, or some mistake in those results? I myself don’t pretend to know, but those who have raced might weigh in if they’re aware of a precedent for such a discrepancy. Has anyone ever heard of a rider whose lab tests indicated a certain level of power, but was never able to get close to this power on the road, over a period of several years?

If there is this discrepancy between the 2007 data and the pre-2011 power files, and we question the former, other questions become easier to answer. Why did none of Froome’s teams recognize his extraordinary potential? Because it wasn’t that extraordinary. How did he transform in 2011? By increasing his V02max/power as well as, most likely, losing some weight. The pre-2011 data should certainly speak to the weight question, which by itself would be important to clarify.

So that is one conceivable conclusion that might be reached from analysis of pre-2011 power files. Those files, though, might not be that clear-cut. Maybe sometimes he did match or at least closely approach the 2007 lab results. I think this is what Jeroen is referring to in scenario c). In that case, the latter would become far more believable, and we now have some more difficult questions, why his potential was not recognized, and how he transformed.

But before tackling those questions, note that this shows why having those pre-2011 data is so important. They can help confirm the 2007 FAX, or not. They also clarify what other questions need to be asked related to the relationship of Froome pre- vs. post-2011. So I can’t agree with anyone who thinks releasing the pre-2011 power files is not important. Again, let's stop framing the issue as all-or-none, doping or not doping, and see what the data suggest first.

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

We can see from the 2007 data that he already had the ability to produce the required power output.

Analysing the data from pre 2011 will demonstrate either:

a) an inability to deliver the same output in competition

OR

b) an inability to deliver the same output in training AND competition

OR

c) an inability to reproduce the performances reliably.

None of the above will tell you why that changed. It doesn't tell the story.

Suppose the pre-2011 power files consistently reveal power much less than what the 2007 FAX claims. Wouldn’t that tend to cast doubt on the veracity of that 2007 data? I’m not accusing anyone of intentionally fabricating those data, but if you have that one data point in 2007 contradicted by reams of data since, wouldn’t one begin to question the 2007 data?

In that scenario, which is more likely: a consistent inability to match lab results, or some mistake in those results? I myself don’t pretend to know, but those who have raced might weigh in if they’re aware of a precedent for such a discrepancy. Has anyone ever heard of a rider whose lab tests indicated a certain level of power, but was never able to get close to this power on the road, over a period of several years?

If there is this discrepancy between the 2007 data and the pre-2011 power files, and we question the former, other questions become easier to answer. Why did none of Froome’s teams recognize his extraordinary potential? Because it wasn’t that extraordinary. How did he transform in 2011? By increasing his V02max/power as well as, most likely, losing some weight. The pre-2011 data should certainly speak to the weight question, which by itself would be important to clarify.

So that is one conceivable conclusion that might be reached from analysis of pre-2011 power files. Those files, though, might not be that clear-cut. Maybe sometimes he did match or at least closely approach the 2007 lab results. I think this is what Jeroen is referring to in scenario c). In that case, the latter would become far more believable, and we now have some more difficult questions, why his potential was not recognized, and how he transformed.

But before tackling those questions, note that this shows why having those pre-2011 data is so important. They can help confirm the 2007 FAX, or not. They also clarify what other questions need to be asked related to the relationship of Froome pre- vs. post-2011. So I can’t agree with anyone who thinks releasing the pre-2011 power files is not important. Again, let's stop framing the issue as all-or-none, doping or not doping, and see what the data suggest first.

Agreed, this was the point of my temperature example up stream.

The 2007 (fax) data lines up with the 2015 test data. They are eight years apart. Because we have a visual on the race performance between 2008 and 2011, which was extremely poor, even in straight line flat time trials it makes one question the veracity of the 2007 data and want to see validated statistics from 08 and august 2011.

 

[acoggan]

My favorite part of all the "data" is that on One of the most suspicous performances the Heart rate monitor was under an anomaly lag or was not working at all. This is classic. What sports research would put their name / stamp on something when the data was not reliable?

:lol:

If you've ever conducted any research using exercising humans, you'd realize that stuff like this happens all the time.

Moreover, as has been pointed out before, the heart rate data are essentially irrelevant.

IOW, you're naively barking up the wrong tree.

Agreed, I think we can put the heart rate data issue to rest. It has already been hashed out and agreed by most that the missing heart rate data is irrelevant to the findings of the larger test.

Slight amend, the data is not irrelevant per se.

No, actually, it is irrelevant. VO2max, efficiency, and threshold determine sustainable power, and values for all three were presented. Neither submaximal nor maximal heart rate provide any additional insight in this context.

 

[thehog]

My favorite part of all the "data" is that on One of the most suspicous performances the Heart rate monitor was under an anomaly lag or was not working at all. This is classic. What sports research would put their name / stamp on something when the data was not reliable?

:lol:

If you've ever conducted any research using exercising humans, you'd realize that stuff like this happens all the time.

Moreover, as has been pointed out before, the heart rate data are essentially irrelevant.

IOW, you're naively barking up the wrong tree.

Agreed, I think we can put the heart rate data issue to rest. It has already been hashed out and agreed by most that the missing heart rate data is irrelevant to the findings of the larger test.

Slight amend, the data is not irrelevant per se.

No, actually, it is irrelevant. VO2max, efficiency, and threshold determine sustainable power, and values for all three were presented. Neither submaximal nor maximal heart rate provide any additional insight in this context.

Per my post which you cut in half;

The only interest held was the comparison to the leaked video. And because we have the submaximal data the predicted max would fairly much line up with the footage.

It was already there for you to read, so not sure why you cut it out.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

My favorite part of all the "data" is that on One of the most suspicous performances the Heart rate monitor was under an anomaly lag or was not working at all. This is classic. What sports research would put their name / stamp on something when the data was not reliable?

:lol:

If you've ever conducted any research using exercising humans, you'd realize that stuff like this happens all the time.

Moreover, as has been pointed out before, the heart rate data are essentially irrelevant.

IOW, you're naively barking up the wrong tree.

IOW you don't find it funny? I think that is hilarious because it was a topic of discussion for a long time.

I just thought that was seriously funny. It's like back in the day when you are watching the TDF on an antenna (maybe you are to young to know what that is) BW television set. And the big climb is coming up as you have watched about 2 hours of coverage and bammmmmm the reception goes to crap because some solar flare went off that you can't control. I just though it was funny / bananas. IOW it still is funny.

 

[acoggan]

Per my post which you cut in half;

The only interest held was the comparison to the leaked video. And because we have the submaximal data the predicted max would fairly much line up with the footage.

It was already there for you to read, so not sure why you cut it out.

Comparing heart rate data from a lab test and a race is a fool's errand...and I'm no fool.

 

[thehog]

Per my post which you cut in half;

The only interest held was the comparison to the leaked video. And because we have the submaximal data the predicted max would fairly much line up with the footage.

It was already there for you to read, so not sure why you cut it out.

Comparing heart rate data from a lab test and a race is a fool's errand...and I'm no fool.

That's nice to know but not sure what it has to do with a discussion forum where people get together and discuss various aspects related to a specific topic. That we will continue to do with or without your approval.

Most odd.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Per my post which you cut in half;

The only interest held was the comparison to the leaked video. And because we have the submaximal data the predicted max would fairly much line up with the footage.

It was already there for you to read, so not sure why you cut it out.

Comparing heart rate data from a lab test and a race is a fool's errand...and I'm no fool.

I was not commenting on the comparison. I just thought it was a great glorious coincidence for the time with respect to the notion that the Heart rate monitor was not reliable for that performance.

My comment on the lab or folks who put their name on it was just a jab to poke fun.

AnyWho "sorry to disturb yalls black panther party" IOW Sorry to derail the discussion here.

 

[acoggan]

Per my post which you cut in half;

The only interest held was the comparison to the leaked video. And because we have the submaximal data the predicted max would fairly much line up with the footage.

It was already there for you to read, so not sure why you cut it out.

Comparing heart rate data from a lab test and a race is a fool's errand...and I'm no fool.

That's nice to know but not sure what it has to do with a discussion forum where people get together and discuss various aspects related to a specific topic. That we will continue to do with or without your approval.

Most odd.

You asked why I ignored your comparison, and I answered.

 

[thehog]

Per my post which you cut in half;

The only interest held was the comparison to the leaked video. And because we have the submaximal data the predicted max would fairly much line up with the footage.

It was already there for you to read, so not sure why you cut it out.

Comparing heart rate data from a lab test and a race is a fool's errand...and I'm no fool.

That's nice to know but not sure what it has to do with a discussion forum where people get together and discuss various aspects related to a specific topic. That we will continue to do with or without your approval.

Most odd.

You asked why I ignored your comparison, and I answered.

I see but I wasn't responding to you. I was replying to another poster to which you were interjecting to again tell everyone your thoughts on heart rate.

We all get it, you think heart rate is irrelevant in this case. Good for you.

Anything else you need to get off your chest?

 

[bigcog]

Re: Re:

The 2007 (fax) data lines up with the 2015 test data. They are eight years apart. Because we have a visual on the race performance between 2008 and 2011, which was extremely poor, even in straight line flat time trials it makes one question the veracity of the 2007 data and want to see validated statistics from 08 and august 2011.

I wouldn't say all his results were extremely poor, ok he wasn't world beating but he finished the TDF and came in a fairly decent position in an ITT at the end of it in that period. That isn't bad for someone was pretty clueless when it comes to 'race craft' and was there as a dom.

 

[red_flanders]

Re: Re:

Is your hypothesis that his 2011 transformation was due to doping?

If so, then before that he was clean or cleaner.

What is your hypothesis?. That is the question you need to answer. Let's test your hypothesis.

Obviously, there is not enough data available to come to a scientifically accurate conclusion of any hypothesis around his doping or lack thereof. Mostly because that data isn't available, for whatever reason.

It would be nice if Sky had and would release all the data, and if the collection of said data was transparent and had a reasonably trustworthy chain of custody. None of that is possible. All of that would be required to come to a scientific conclusion. Sky releasing data at this point would not provide this.

So we are left to make up our minds on what evidence we do have. We know Sky have lied and misled the public innumerable times on this topic. We know that the rider in question went through a sudden and dramatic change in results. We know that in cases where this has happened in the past in professional cycling, the answer was always doping.

Reasonable people will at this point reasonably believe he doped to get where he is now. Reasonable people would expect a level of skepticism on this topic from a scientist, rather than ignoring it or tacitly endorsing the PR of Sky WRT the question of doping, which is the supposed point of the retroactive Froome testing, as logically absurd as that is.

Is there really anything more to it?

 

[acoggan]

I wasn't responding to you. I was replying to another poster

So? Your statement was still incorrect.

 

[acoggan]

Re: Re:

Obviously, there is not enough data available to come to a scientifically accurate conclusion of any hypothesis around his doping or lack thereof.

And there can't be, because physiological tests like VO2max can't be used to answer that question.