The Froome Files, test data only thread

[sniper]

Not sure the HR data tells us much of interest (for all the physiological reasons that make it difficult to infer much at all from it).

nobody's sure, that's why it would've been interesting to see the number.

But for those that seem to care about it or be interested, all of the HR data from the lactate threshold tests was collected /reported, it was only the VO2max test for which the HR signal was lost. No one seems to have suggested the complete HR data is not consistent with the "leaked" climbing data.

cheers, i guess thats fair enough.

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

Agreed, the fax is Froome's jiffy bag, no one knows how it came about. Swart is no dummy, not including it in his final report made sense otherwise the ridicule scale would have went off the charts. Even more so after the "he just lost the fat" quote which is now etched in stone.

It's makes you wonder how bright, seemingly intelligent people are willing to accept that paltry looking fax as the real deal. I guess that's why tertiary educated people drink diet sodas believing that is it good for them? Who's knows?

Seriously, for an exercise physiologist who also works for an antidoping agency and has knowledge of all the SA doping cases that happened in the naughties, to take that Fax at face value and overlook even the most basic errors such as the BMI being off with the weight, or Froome's fatpercentage being ridiculously high for a trained cyclist who according to Johnny Lee Augustyn, Swart's pupil, was already very keen on his diet in 2007, that's odd.

 

[thehog]

Re:

Not sure the HR data tells us much of interest (for all the physiological reasons that make it difficult to infer much at all from it).

nobody's sure, that's why it would've been interesting to see the number.

But for those that seem to care about it or be interested, all of the HR data from the lactate threshold tests was collected /reported, it was only the VO2max test for which the HR signal was lost. No one seems to have suggested the complete HR data is not consistent with the "leaked" climbing data.

cheers, i guess thats fair enough.

Of the HR data recorded if you step it out with a straight line trajectory from the leaked data it fairly much matches to his max HR. Losing it the strap during the tests didn't make a huge amount of difference. I guess it's just coincidence, that Froome lost his strap in the test and then in the Ride London race which was beaming live HR to an app and TV.

 

[gillan1969]

its a data point (HR)...a pretty significant one

it measures the rate at which the muscle pumping the blood (which carries the oxygen) is working. That it is not entirely consistent makes it presumably more interesting rather than less (albeit a wider and far more complicated interest than Froome)

In any event, when Ventoux (one of Froome's more questionable rides in a post-2011 career of numerous questionable rides) appears to indicate a very small heart rate response to a large increase in speed then at the upper end his heart rate response is of interest...

especially if the only reason the test was done was to promote openness (official) and try to prove he's clean (unofficial)

unfortunate indeed...............

 

[Ironhead Slim]

its a data point (HR)...a pretty significant one

it measures the rate at which the muscle pumping the blood (which carries the oxygen) is working. That it is not entirely consistent makes it presumably more interesting rather than less (albeit a wider and far more complicated interest than Froome)

In any event, when Ventoux (one of Froome's more questionable rides in a post-2011 career of numerous questionable rides) appears to indicate a very small heart rate response to a large increase in speed then at the upper end his heart rate response is of interest...

especially if the only reason the test was done was to promote openness (official) and try to prove he's clean (unofficial)

unfortunate indeed...............

Thank you!

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

... appears to indicate a very small heart rate response to a large increase in speed then at the upper end his heart rate response is of interest...

Which just demonstrates a lack of understanding of how HR response works. We've been over this ad nauseum on this thread already.

Assuming the data was valid to begin, which amuses me given the focus of attention on doubting a fax's veracity but accepting the HR and other data file channels as being verifiably accurate.

People just need to accept that neither the fax, nor the physiological testing, nor the released power meter file(s) confer any light on Froome's doping status (either way).

 

[pastronef]

... appears to indicate a very small heart rate response to a large increase in speed then at the upper end his heart rate response is of interest...

Which just demonstrates a lack of understanding of how HR response works. We've been over this ad nauseum on this thread already.

Assuming the data was valid to begin, which amuses me given the focus of attention on doubting a fax's veracity but accepting the HR and other data file channels as being verifiably accurate.

People just need to accept that neither the fax, nor the physiological testing, nor the released power meter file(s) confer any light on Froome's doping status (either way).

THAT

 

[sniper]

... appears to indicate a very small heart rate response to a large increase in speed then at the upper end his heart rate response is of interest...

Which just demonstrates a lack of understanding of how HR response works. We've been over this ad nauseum on this thread already.

Assuming the data was valid to begin, which amuses me given the focus of attention on doubting a fax's veracity but accepting the HR and other data file channels as being verifiably accurate.

People just need to accept that neither the fax, nor the physiological testing, nor the released power meter file(s) confer any light on Froome's doping status (either way).

You're missing the point as to why people doubt the fax but not (or less so) the leaked ventoux file.
It's a bit like why we doubted Floyd when he said he was clean, but we didn't doubt Floyd when he said he doped.
Different motivations and all that. Common sense.

Also, have you even seen let alone addressed the evidence that the Fax is fake? Not that I recall. You might wanna give it a new look. You know, for science sake. Amusing? More like unsettling. Provided you care about proper science and clean sport of course.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

... appears to indicate a very small heart rate response to a large increase in speed then at the upper end his heart rate response is of interest...

Which just demonstrates a lack of understanding of how HR response works. We've been over this ad nauseum on this thread already.

Assuming the data was valid to begin, which amuses me given the focus of attention on doubting a fax's veracity but accepting the HR and other data file channels as being verifiably accurate.

People just need to accept that neither the fax, nor the physiological testing, nor the released power meter file(s) confer any light on Froome's doping status (either way).

You're missing the point as to why people doubt the fax but not (or less so) the leaked ventoux file.
It's a bit like why we doubted Lance when he said he was clean, but we didn't doubt Floyd when he said he doped.
Different motivations and all that. Common sense.

Also, have you even seen let alone addressed the evidence that the Fax is fake? Not that I recall. You might wanna give it a new look. You know, for science sake. Amusing? More like unsettling. Provided you care about proper science and clean sport of course.

I have no real interest in the fax since its contents (real or otherwise) are immaterial to the questions posed in this thread (i.e. is so and so a doper?). Like all the other information - power meter files, HR data, physiological tests etc, none of it can ever answer the question people want the answer to.

That people seek to make such things fit their preferred narrative (often incorrectly) and ignore those things that don't is what I find more interesting to discuss.

 

[sniper]

Right, a quick "no I haven't" would have sufficed.
Again, if you care about clean cycling and proper science, have a look at the fax fraud evidence.
Until you have, I'm not sure if you are in a position to say what you just said about other people.

Whether the fax and its contents is real or not, how can you possibly say that that's immaterial to the doping question?
Jeroen Swart didn't think it was immaterial.

 

[gillan1969]

... appears to indicate a very small heart rate response to a large increase in speed then at the upper end his heart rate response is of interest...

Which just demonstrates a lack of understanding of how HR response works. We've been over this ad nauseum on this thread already.

Assuming the data was valid to begin, which amuses me given the focus of attention on doubting a fax's veracity but accepting the HR and other data file channels as being verifiably accurate.

People just need to accept that neither the fax, nor the physiological testing, nor the released power meter file(s) confer any light on Froome's doping status (either way).

there is no assumption its valid...however, having another data point would have helped...the more data points the better picture you can build no?

forgive my ignorance on HR response, I'm basing it on my own experience and those I ride with...you're riding hard on a climb and put in a dig, your HR responds...Froome's appears not to do this (note I said 'appears') am I missing something?

regarding the veracity...it the provenance of the data that brings it into question...the data from Ventoux we understand to be genuine (at least from the SKY response)...the fax is just that, a fax with nothing to back it up (and with mistakes), and, especially after how Swart finally dealt with the fax (as opposed to Moore)

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Re:

Right, a quick "no I haven't" would have sufficed.
Again, if you care about clean cycling and proper science, have a look at the fax fraud evidence.
Until you have, I'm not sure if you are in a position to say what you just said about other people.

Whether the fax and its contents is real or not, how can you possibly say that that's immaterial to the doping question?
Jeroen Swart didn't think it was immaterial.

It's immaterial to the question of whether we can determine doping status from such information. Power meter files, power meter estimates, faxes, physiological testing. The list of things immaterial to the question of doping status is long.

What is material is actual evidence of doping.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

forgive my ignorance on HR response, I'm basing it on my own experience and those I ride with...you're riding hard on a climb and put in a dig, your HR responds...Froome's appears not to do this (note I said 'appears') am I missing something?

Yes. HR response is not totally predictable nor consistent, it varies due to many factors other than how hard you happen to be pedalling at the time and neither is the recording of it necessarily reliable.

As evidence of doping, it's about as useful as an ashtray on a motorbike.

As for reliability of the data, keep in mind the recording device itself may not be as good as people seem to think, e.g.:

Heart rate monitors have been marketed as an accurate way to measure heart rate. This investigation was designed to determine the validity of seven different types of heart rate monitors. Fourteen men (19.6 ± 2.3 years, 77.7 ±7.1 kg) participated in the study. Heart rate was measured simultaneously for 10 sec during minute 9 -10 of rest or during exercise on a treadmill at 85.7 m · min-1, 107.3 m · min-1, and 160.8 m · min-1. Pearson product-moment correlation (r) and standard error of estimate (SEE) were calculated between an electrocardiogram (ECG) measurement and the measurement of heart rate from each of the 7 heart rate monitors. The POLAR Vantage XL, POLAR Accurex II, Cardiochamp, and the Cateye-PL 6000 heart rate monitors accurately assessed heart rates (r 0.90, SEE £ 5 beats · min-1) during rest and at moderate activity. At the highest speed, the accuracy decreased, leading us to caution the heart rate monitor user regarding the validity of any of these monitors at high heart rates and motion levels.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232829158_Validity_of_Seven_Commercially_Available_Heart_Rate_Monitors

In recent years increasing emphasis has been placed on the benefits of exercise to normal healthy adults as well as to those recovering from heart attacks and other illnesses. As an aid to exercise training many portable heart-rate monitors have been placed on the market but little appears to have been done to assess the performance of these machines. The authors have examined the performance of four such monitors both under bench-test and practical exercising conditions. When tested on the bench using electronic equipment, the machines rarely exhibited errors exceeding 2-3 bpm over a measurement range of 30-240 bpm. However, when tested with subjects walking or jogging at low speeds on a treadmill, typically 20-70% of the readings given by the machines had errors of greater than 20 bpm. In some cases over 50% of readings had errors exceeding 50 bpm.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1478597/

 

[noddy69]

Re: Re:

Right, a quick "no I haven't" would have sufficed.
Again, if you care about clean cycling and proper science, have a look at the fax fraud evidence.
Until you have, I'm not sure if you are in a position to say what you just said about other people.

Whether the fax and its contents is real or not, how can you possibly say that that's immaterial to the doping question?
Jeroen Swart didn't think it was immaterial.

It's immaterial to the question of whether we can determine doping status from such information. Power meter files, power meter estimates, faxes, physiological testing. The list of things immaterial to the question of doping status is long.

What is material is actual evidence of doping.

Lets face it that's not really true, in fact it's a Lance defence. Don't test positive = not taking drugs: I call bull.
The weight of circumstantial evidence lends itself towards guilty heavily. Circumstantial evidence could be used if there was any appetite to catch dopers but as the current situation shows there isn't.

 

[Electress]

Re: Re:

Right, a quick "no I haven't" would have sufficed.
Again, if you care about clean cycling and proper science, have a look at the fax fraud evidence.
Until you have, I'm not sure if you are in a position to say what you just said about other people.

Whether the fax and its contents is real or not, how can you possibly say that that's immaterial to the doping question?
Jeroen Swart didn't think it was immaterial.

It's immaterial to the question of whether we can determine doping status from such information. Power meter files, power meter estimates, faxes, physiological testing. The list of things immaterial to the question of doping status is long.

What is material is actual evidence of doping.

Lets face it that's not really true, in fact it's a Lance defence. Don't test positive = not taking drugs: I call bull.
The weight of circumstantial evidence lends itself towards guilty heavily. Circumstantial evidence could be used if there was any appetite to catch dopers but as the current situation shows there isn't.

Agreed. At what point does the whiff of rat become so strong that spotting the actual rat becomes important only to confirm how big it is.

 

[thehog]

forgive my ignorance on HR response, I'm basing it on my own experience and those I ride with...you're riding hard on a climb and put in a dig, your HR responds...Froome's appears not to do this (note I said 'appears') am I missing something?

Yes. HR response is not totally predictable nor consistent, it varies due to many factors other than how hard you happen to be pedalling at the time and neither is the recording of it necessarily reliable.

As evidence of doping, it's about as useful as an ashtray on a motorbike.

As for reliability of the data, keep in mind the recording device itself may not be as good as people seem to think, e.g.:

Heart rate monitors have been marketed as an accurate way to measure heart rate. This investigation was designed to determine the validity of seven different types of heart rate monitors. Fourteen men (19.6 ± 2.3 years, 77.7 ±7.1 kg) participated in the study. Heart rate was measured simultaneously for 10 sec during minute 9 -10 of rest or during exercise on a treadmill at 85.7 m · min-1, 107.3 m · min-1, and 160.8 m · min-1. Pearson product-moment correlation (r) and standard error of estimate (SEE) were calculated between an electrocardiogram (ECG) measurement and the measurement of heart rate from each of the 7 heart rate monitors. The POLAR Vantage XL, POLAR Accurex II, Cardiochamp, and the Cateye-PL 6000 heart rate monitors accurately assessed heart rates (r 0.90, SEE £ 5 beats · min-1) during rest and at moderate activity. At the highest speed, the accuracy decreased, leading us to caution the heart rate monitor user regarding the validity of any of these monitors at high heart rates and motion levels.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232829158_Validity_of_Seven_Commercially_Available_Heart_Rate_Monitors

In recent years increasing emphasis has been placed on the benefits of exercise to normal healthy adults as well as to those recovering from heart attacks and other illnesses. As an aid to exercise training many portable heart-rate monitors have been placed on the market but little appears to have been done to assess the performance of these machines. The authors have examined the performance of four such monitors both under bench-test and practical exercising conditions. When tested on the bench using electronic equipment, the machines rarely exhibited errors exceeding 2-3 bpm over a measurement range of 30-240 bpm. However, when tested with subjects walking or jogging at low speeds on a treadmill, typically 20-70% of the readings given by the machines had errors of greater than 20 bpm. In some cases over 50% of readings had errors exceeding 50 bpm.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1478597/

Heart rate in general is not that interesting, heart rate is specific to an individual is much more interesting. In Froome's case he has a very low max heart when at maximum efforts. The reasons why heart monitors are still used is it can be collated with other information such as empirical evidence to be an indication of a change in state such as sickness.

You're attempting to dismiss the data out of hand whereas the usage of such devices is just as prevalent has power data etc. which indicates the data point is required and still used - perhaps not by scientists in a lab but out in the field, most definitely.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Re: Re:

Right, a quick "no I haven't" would have sufficed.
Again, if you care about clean cycling and proper science, have a look at the fax fraud evidence.
Until you have, I'm not sure if you are in a position to say what you just said about other people.

Whether the fax and its contents is real or not, how can you possibly say that that's immaterial to the doping question?
Jeroen Swart didn't think it was immaterial.

It's immaterial to the question of whether we can determine doping status from such information. Power meter files, power meter estimates, faxes, physiological testing. The list of things immaterial to the question of doping status is long.

What is material is actual evidence of doping.

Lets face it that's not really true, in fact it's a Lance defence. Don't test positive = not taking drugs: I call bull.
The weight of circumstantial evidence lends itself towards guilty heavily. Circumstantial evidence could be used if there was any appetite to catch dopers but as the current situation shows there isn't.

I'm not providing a defence of anyone, that's a false characterisation of what I'm saying. I'm just pointing out what is not reliable evidence for establishing a rider's doping status, despite how much people might want it to be so.

As for the Lance line, I agree. Not testing positive is not an indicator of a whether a rider is doping. It just establishes they didn't test positive. I've never taken the Lance line, and my statements above have nothing to do with the lance line.

I know we may wish it were easy to establish whether a rider is or is not a doper, but unfortunately it just isn't the case. If it were easy, then do you think we'd have the ongoing systemic problems we do?

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

forgive my ignorance on HR response, I'm basing it on my own experience and those I ride with...you're riding hard on a climb and put in a dig, your HR responds...Froome's appears not to do this (note I said 'appears') am I missing something?

Yes. HR response is not totally predictable nor consistent, it varies due to many factors other than how hard you happen to be pedalling at the time and neither is the recording of it necessarily reliable.

As evidence of doping, it's about as useful as an ashtray on a motorbike.

As for reliability of the data, keep in mind the recording device itself may not be as good as people seem to think, e.g.:

Heart rate monitors have been marketed as an accurate way to measure heart rate. This investigation was designed to determine the validity of seven different types of heart rate monitors. Fourteen men (19.6 ± 2.3 years, 77.7 ±7.1 kg) participated in the study. Heart rate was measured simultaneously for 10 sec during minute 9 -10 of rest or during exercise on a treadmill at 85.7 m · min-1, 107.3 m · min-1, and 160.8 m · min-1. Pearson product-moment correlation (r) and standard error of estimate (SEE) were calculated between an electrocardiogram (ECG) measurement and the measurement of heart rate from each of the 7 heart rate monitors. The POLAR Vantage XL, POLAR Accurex II, Cardiochamp, and the Cateye-PL 6000 heart rate monitors accurately assessed heart rates (r 0.90, SEE £ 5 beats · min-1) during rest and at moderate activity. At the highest speed, the accuracy decreased, leading us to caution the heart rate monitor user regarding the validity of any of these monitors at high heart rates and motion levels.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232829158_Validity_of_Seven_Commercially_Available_Heart_Rate_Monitors

In recent years increasing emphasis has been placed on the benefits of exercise to normal healthy adults as well as to those recovering from heart attacks and other illnesses. As an aid to exercise training many portable heart-rate monitors have been placed on the market but little appears to have been done to assess the performance of these machines. The authors have examined the performance of four such monitors both under bench-test and practical exercising conditions. When tested on the bench using electronic equipment, the machines rarely exhibited errors exceeding 2-3 bpm over a measurement range of 30-240 bpm. However, when tested with subjects walking or jogging at low speeds on a treadmill, typically 20-70% of the readings given by the machines had errors of greater than 20 bpm. In some cases over 50% of readings had errors exceeding 50 bpm.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1478597/

Heart rate in general is not that interesting, heart rate is specific to an individual is much more interesting. In Froome's case he has a very low max heart when at maximum efforts. The reasons why heart monitors are still used is it can be collated with other information such as empirical evidence to be an indication of a change in state such as sickness.

You're attempting to dismiss the data out of hand whereas the usage of such devices is just as prevalent has power data etc. which indicates the data point is required and still used - perhaps not by scientists in a lab but out in the field, most definitely.

Not everything that's measured matters. No matter how prevalent it is.

 

[veganrob]

I don't know if people are saying that HR is a reliable indicator of a rider doping. What they are saying is HR is an important part of a riders physiology and one of several indicators to what a rider is capable of. From there a riders doping status could be debated.
Maybe a bad anaology is "does a power meter make you a faster rider?" That answer is obviously No. But one can be a valuable part of your training knowledge which can help you make decisions to make you a faster rider.

 

[noddy69]

Re: Re:

Right, a quick "no I haven't" would have sufficed.
Again, if you care about clean cycling and proper science, have a look at the fax fraud evidence.
Until you have, I'm not sure if you are in a position to say what you just said about other people.

Whether the fax and its contents is real or not, how can you possibly say that that's immaterial to the doping question?
Jeroen Swart didn't think it was immaterial.

It's immaterial to the question of whether we can determine doping status from such information. Power meter files, power meter estimates, faxes, physiological testing. The list of things immaterial to the question of doping status is long.

What is material is actual evidence of doping.

Lets face it that's not really true, in fact it's a Lance defence. Don't test positive = not taking drugs: I call bull.
The weight of circumstantial evidence lends itself towards guilty heavily. Circumstantial evidence could be used if there was any appetite to catch dopers but as the current situation shows there isn't.

I'm not providing a defence of anyone, that's a false characterisation of what I'm saying. I'm just pointing out what is not reliable evidence for establishing a rider's doping status, despite how much people might want it to be so.

As for the Lance line, I agree. Not testing positive is not an indicator of a whether a rider is doping. It just establishes they didn't test positive. I've never taken the Lance line, and my statements above have nothing to do with the lance line.

I know we may wish it were easy to establish whether a rider is or is not a doper, but unfortunately it just isn't the case. If it were easy, then do you think we'd have the ongoing systemic problems we do?

I do- I actually think we have the ongoing systemic problems even though it would be easy to catch. That in essence is the issue- no appetite to catch people due to corruption ( In all sports money wins not ethics)

 

[sniper]

Have to agree with noddy here.

Time and again we see clear indications that where there is a will there is almost always a way.

Before the Games the Rio lab(!) tested a brazilian cyclist positive for no less than 14 substances. Easy.

Or take Astana's recent flood of positives. UCI wanted to set some kind of example, or put some pressure on Astana to pay the bills, et voila...four or five positives out of the hat. Piece of cake.

Or Contador. Somebody wanted him popped (be it to get rid of him or to blackmail him), and so his samples were sent to the Cologne lab for target testing. Not so straightforward perhaps, but still a fairly easy catch.

Jamaica's sprinters, yet another case in point.
Almost all tested positive, no big deal apparently...except that one man.

All goes to show that if there's an appetite to catch cheats, then there are multiple ways to catch cheats.
The appetite just isn't there most of the time.
btw, UKAD at present is providing several clearcut cases in point for the lack of appetite, for instance by not going after Bonar, clearing Sky wrt the jiffy bag, giving athletes advance notice of testing through twitter, etc.


As for Froome's heartrate, to suggest it doesnt matter, imo that's an odd stance to take, from a scientific pov.
Well of course, if we don't have all the numbers to compare off against each other then it will not matter.
But if we'd have the full numbers from the testing, who knows what they may have shown in comparison to the Ventoux file.
As for the Fax, no, it's not immaterial either. If it were immaterial, Froome/Cound, Swart and Moore would not have made such a fuss about it in the Esquire article.

 

[thehog]

Like when the UCI shipped around Mayo's B sample to get the right result. Of course he was using drugs but McQuaid managed to come up with 'inconclusive' rather than negative.

On that note McQuaid was once quoted as saying (over a few beers) in his final final few days of his presidency that the rider most likely using drugs in the current peloton was Froome.

Spanish cyclist Iban Mayo's 'B' sample for his positive drugs test in the 2007 Tour de France will be re-analysed after returning an inconclusive result.

On Monday Mayo, 30, was told the 'B' analysis from his positive test for erythropoietin (EPO) was negative.

But the International Cycling Union (UCI) says Mayo is not yet clear.

"The Paris lab was closed when the sample was to be tested," said UCI president Pat McQuaid. "It was done in Ghent - the result was inconclusive."

The mountain specialist, who finished the Tour in 16th place overall, was immediately suspended while his Saunier Duval team awaited the results of his B sample.

Mayo has said he is considering taking legal action against the UCI over the way he has been treated.

"It was a very bad experience because I didn't understand what was happening but everything has turned out as I expected," he told Spanish newspaper Marca.

"It doesn't seem logical nor credible," he said. "I've spent many years cycling and I can't chuck it all in but sometimes you feel like it because there are so many injustices.

"The fans who like cycling don't want to see this sort of thing. Cycling is a spectacle that involves sacrifice if not you don't get the results."

Mayo, who joined Saunier Duval from the Euskaltel Euskadi team last October, has frequently been tipped to shine in the Tour de France but has failed to live up to expectations.

He finished sixth in the Tour in 2003 and won the Dauphine Libere race in 2004.

 

[Jeroen Swart]

Gesink, showing Swart/GSK how not to have heart rate strap slip off, double wrap.

Rookie error by the GSK crew on Froome :lol:

The "rookie error" is seeing a picture of someone with a standard 12 lead ECG set-up and assuming that the two black bands are heart rate monitor straps.

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

 

[Jeroen Swart]

Re: Re:

Would also seem to be a rookie error putting such straps on in such a way that they would slip down thereby not be able to record HR. And then not replacing straps in order to get said HR seems negligent and amateurish. Then with such an important test for the world to see and analyze might be construed as deceptive.

this.

but the negligence is hardly surprising seeing how they took that 2007 fax at face value, overlooking hard-to-overlook errors such as the mismatch of BMI and weight.

This job had amateurism written all over it.

Come on Sniper. Such innuendo.

The strap did not slip down, it simply stopped working.

And as for the final point: Any aspect of the GSK lab or staff that you specifically feel were amateurish? World class lab and utmost precision from their staff. It should be held up as a standard.

 

[thehog]

Gesink, showing Swart/GSK how not to have heart rate strap slip off, double wrap.

Rookie error by the GSK crew on Froome :lol:

The "rookie error" is seeing a picture of someone with a standard 12 lead ECG set-up and assuming that the two black bands are heart rate monitor straps.

:lol:

Thought you'd like it :lol: "he just lost the fat" :lol: