The Froome Files, test data only thread

[ScienceIsCool]

The folks claiming max HR isn't important, do they know what they're talking about? If so, I'd listen to them. Maybe ask questions where things don't quite make sense.

John Swanson

 

[Tienus]

The power meter data from the Ventoux video would have been recorded from a stages unit. As such, any motor used to drive the crank axle or a rim or any other known method of motorised doping would not have contributed to the power reading from the Stages. i.e the Stages would have demonstrated a lower power output than required to perform the work of climbing at the rate recorded. As it did not, there can clearly be no motor.

This looks like SRM
http://img.theepochtimes.com/n3/eet-content/uploads/2013/07/Froome15Ventoux1735093581.jpg

 

[red_flanders]

Re:

The folks claiming max HR isn't important, do they know what they're talking about? If so, I'd listen to them. Maybe ask questions where things don't quite make sense.

John Swanson

Is this line of discussion around the testing, or the Ventoux video? Haven't followed the whole thing and it seems to be moving back and forth a bit. Thx.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Re: Re:

...
I think the key point that needs to be addressed is that physiological testing does not confirm or refute the use of prohibited substances.

You need specific evidence relating to those and all these vague circumstantial bits of evidence only serve to muddy the water.

One thing we did clarify with the testing is that the performances we have seen in the races are within the limits of normal human abilities. Which puts to rest all these inferences that a performance was "mutant" or otherwise.

Once again, whether it was done cleanly or not is not established by the climbing rate or the physiological testing. Neither will answer that question.

Of course.
We need at least two or more data points for one variable, so that we can start comparing.

That's why The Call was for multiple tests to be carried out throughout the season. Not one isolated test.
(see the quote in my previous post)

That's why the dodgy Fax (of which apparently there is no original) was quickly muffled into the Esquire article.

That's why the missing max HR was such a pity.

And that's, in the end, why I said this job had "amateurism" written all over it.

You're not listening to Jeroen, are you? And to publicly call someone's professional work amateur is quite low. Especially since it was nothing of the sort.

John Swanson

Is it really John? I mean dude comes into a place where doping talk is rampant. You can't expect everyone to just march the goose step and fall in line can you?

I question the loyalty of the person as I do not know anything about his profession. I just know from my perspective he seems to be part of the "club".

 

[ScienceIsCool]

Re: Re:

...
I think the key point that needs to be addressed is that physiological testing does not confirm or refute the use of prohibited substances.

You need specific evidence relating to those and all these vague circumstantial bits of evidence only serve to muddy the water.

One thing we did clarify with the testing is that the performances we have seen in the races are within the limits of normal human abilities. Which puts to rest all these inferences that a performance was "mutant" or otherwise.

Once again, whether it was done cleanly or not is not established by the climbing rate or the physiological testing. Neither will answer that question.

Of course.
We need at least two or more data points for one variable, so that we can start comparing.

That's why The Call was for multiple tests to be carried out throughout the season. Not one isolated test.
(see the quote in my previous post)

That's why the dodgy Fax (of which apparently there is no original) was quickly muffled into the Esquire article.

That's why the missing max HR was such a pity.

And that's, in the end, why I said this job had "amateurism" written all over it.

You're not listening to Jeroen, are you? And to publicly call someone's professional work amateur is quite low. Especially since it was nothing of the sort.

John Swanson

Is it really John? I mean dude comes into a place where doping talk is rampant. You can't expect everyone to just march the goose step and fall in line can you?

I question the loyalty of the person as I do not know anything about his profession. I just know from my perspective he seems to be part of the "club".

Yeah, I think it's pretty low to publicly telling someone that they're doing a crappy job in their field of expertise. Especially when they don't know the details and stop listening when they're provided.

Being critical and asking lots of pointed questions is totally legit though. An expert should be expected to explain themselves clearly and without ambiguity. Questions like, do you think the fax is accurate or fake? And, what is the relevance of that fax? Why doesn't max HR matter? Those would be interesting.

John Swanson

 

[sniper]

John - a couple of things for you to consider:

If I am asked to do a scientific piece of work and asked to offer my opinion on my work in comparison to another data set, I am professionally beholden to consider all of that other data set.

If I cherry pick only material that suits the client's reason for seeking my services but ignored other parts of that data, I could open myself up for accusations of bias and lack of professionalism.

First off:
Have you ever tested an elite cyclist who has a body fat of 16.9%?
I presume the answer is setting alarm bells off in your mind.

Then consider what the body type is of a person with c. 17% body fat compared with contemporary pictures of Chris Froome. OK that would require the most modest piece of detective work, and maybe searching "chris froome 2007" images was not something Jeroen wanted to contemplate.

I did do the search and I can't find any photo that looks like he had any kind of fat to loose.
Much more the profile of a 8-10% body fat person in the pictures I can see.
As it happens, that judgement coincides with what we know about the Chris Froome from 2007:
(a) he'd been racing several races quite shortly before the testing, so he was trained;
(b) in the book Vavafroome (excerpts of which you can find in google books), Johnny Lee Augustyn alleges that Froome had always been very much into diet, always watched his food, etc.. He's talking about the 2007-8 period there.

But fair enough, the fat percentage shall remain a subjective judgement. So let's not get hung up on that and instead let's get back to facts and the numbers before us.

Here's one right up your street.
BMI = mass ÷ height²

So if I use the data from the 2007 fax, I get the number 21.85.
Were I scientifically illiterate, I would round to 21.
But if I had any sort of rudimentary scientific/engineering/mathematical skills, I would round to 22.
Please tell me: why is it rounded to 21 on the fax?

One possible hypothesis as to why it was rounded the way it was rounded is because the person doing the rounding was as I described above, amateurish.

What to make of Jeroen not noticing the incorrect BMI/weight ratio and, when made aware of it, discarding it as an insignificant rounding issue, is another question.

 

[red_flanders]

Re: Re:

One thing we did clarify with the testing is that the performances we have seen in the races are within the limits of normal human abilities. Which puts to rest all these inferences that a performance was "mutant" or otherwise.

What are the limits of normal human abilities? How are these determined? Does the testing assume that his test performance is the same as what we've seen in races or does it only establish his abilities at the time tested? I assume you are suggesting the former but I would like that explained as it seems clear with doping possibly involved these conclusions seem premature. If the latter than how does this testing put anything "to rest'?

Once again, whether it was done cleanly or not is not established by the climbing rate or the physiological testing. Neither will answer that question.

Did not Froome/Sky engage i this exercise to show that Froome was clean? No question this test wasn't going to establish that. If that is true, doesn't your reputation become entangled with a fairly dodgy and transparently false PR exercise? Would that not explain some of the reaction you're getting here, informed or otherwise?

 

[ScienceIsCool]

John - a couple of things for you to consider:

If I am asked to do a scientific piece of work and asked to offer my opinion on my work in comparison to another data set, I am professionally beholden to consider all of that other data set.

If I cherry pick only material that suits the client's reason for seeking my services but ignored other parts of that data, I could open myself up for accusations of bias and lack of professionalism.

First off:
Have you ever tested an elite cyclist who has a body fat of 16.9%?
I presume the answer is setting alarm bells off in your mind.

Then consider what the body type is of a person with c. 17% body fat compared with contemporary pictures of Chris Froome. OK that would require the most modest piece of detective work, and maybe searching "chris froome 2007" images was not something Jeroen wanted to contemplate.

I did do the search and I can't find any photo that looks like he had any kind of fat to loose.
Much more the profile of a 8-10% body fat person in the pictures I can see.
As it happens, that judgement coincides with what we know about the Chris Froome from 2007:
(a) he'd been racing several races quite shortly before the testing, so he was trained;
(b) in the book Vavafroome (excerpts of which you can find in google books), Johnny Lee Augustyn alleges that Froome had always been very much into diet, always watched his food, etc.. He's talking about the 2007-8 period there.

But fair enough, the fat percentage shall remain a subjective judgement. So let's not get hung up on that and instead let's get back to facts and the numbers before us.

Here's one right up your street.
BMI = mass ÷ height²

So if I use the data from the 2007 fax, I get the number 21.85.
Were I scientifically illiterate, I would round to 21.
But if I had any sort of rudimentary scientific/engineering/mathematical skills, I would round to 22.
Please tell me: why is it rounded to 21 on the fax?

One possible hypothesis as to why it was rounded the way it was rounded is because the person doing the rounding was as I described above, amateurish.

What to make of Jeroen not noticing the incorrect BMI/weight ratio and, when made aware of it, discarding it as an insignificant rounding issue, is another question.

Up just a few posts, I start with "This is how I see it". In that post I describe why there's some "who cares" about the fax. I also try to explain why there's not much Jeroen can say about it. It's not like it was published anywhere.

John Swanson

 

[ScienceIsCool]

Re: Re:

One thing we did clarify with the testing is that the performances we have seen in the races are within the limits of normal human abilities. Which puts to rest all these inferences that a performance was "mutant" or otherwise.

What are the limits of normal human abilities? How are these determined? Does the testing assume that his test performance is the same as what we've seen in races or does it only establish his abilities at the time tested? I assume you are suggesting the former but I would like that explained as it seems clear with doping possibly involved these conclusions seem premature. If the latter than how does this testing put anything "to rest'?

Once again, whether it was done cleanly or not is not established by the climbing rate or the physiological testing. Neither will answer that question.

Did not Froome/Sky engage i this exercise to show that Froome was clean? No question this test wasn't going to establish that. If that is true, doesn't your reputation become entangled with a fairly dodgy and transparently false PR exercise? Would that not explain some of the reaction you're getting here, informed or otherwise?

Great questions.

John Swanson

 

[sniper]

...
In that post I describe why there's some "who cares" about the fax.

John not caring about potential scientific fraud noted.

I also try to explain why there's not much Jeroen can say about it.

replace [can say] with [should have said], and I agree.

It's not like it was published anywhere.

Good post + questions, Red.

 

[ScienceIsCool]

...
In that post I describe why there's some "who cares" about the fax.

John not caring about potential scientific fraud noted.

I also try to explain why there's not much Jeroen can say about it.

replace [can] with [should], and I agree.

It's not like it was published anywhere.

Good post + questions, Red.

You're really going to have to explain how that's "scientific fraud". Hold on. I'm gonna grab some popcorn.

John Swanson

 

[sniper]

not addressing the rounding issue.
nitpicking and dodging.
nailed you didn't I?

 

[ScienceIsCool]

Re:

not addressing the rounding issue.
nitpicking and dodging.
nailed you didn't I?

Keep going. I got more popcorn.

John Swanson

 

[Irondan]

C'mon now fella's...

 

[pastronef]

I did do the search and I can't find any photo that looks like he had any kind of fat to loose.

2007

 

[sniper]

fair enough, good find.
Any idea when precisely the photo was taken?
Admittedly that looks like he could loose at least *some* fat.
It's still nowhere near 16,9% body fat though, do correct me if wrong?

But as I said, this fat thing will remain a bit of a subjective matter, and we don't wanna rely on photos too much.
The rounding issue is more objectively troublesome.

 

[veganrob]

The question is not "what is the limits of normal human capabilities", but of Froome's capabilities as a clean rider. So the tests proved absolutely nothing of what people want to know.
How did he get from 2007 to 2011. Or more accurately Tour of Poland to Vuelta.

 

[red_flanders]

Re:

The question is not "what is the limits of normal human capabilities", but of Froome's capabilities as a clean rider. So the tests proved absolutely nothing of what people want to know.

I'm in violent agreement with you that this is ultimately the more pertinent question. But I'm still very interested in the answer.

 

[pastronef]

Re:

The question is not "what is the limits of normal human capabilities", but of Froome's capabilities as a clean rider. So the tests proved absolutely nothing of what people want to know.
How did he get from 2007 to 2011. Or more accurately Tour of Poland to Vuelta.

and yet it seems people are not happy about that. this cant prove nothing but we moan about it anyway. they allegedly didnt record the HR, they shoulda done this, coulda done that etc
if the test cant prove he´s clean, which it cant, dont waste time being pissed about the way it was performed

 

[sniper]

I don't see anybody being pissed though, at least not about the scholarly paper.
Ive seen people poking fun at the lack of Max Hr measurement, and people deploring The amateurism of the Esquire Job/fax.
And sone People beong annoyed about the PR behind it. Fromie claiming it shows he clean etc.
But thats it.
Nobody is pissed about the way 'it' was performed.

 

[thehog]

John - a couple of things for you to consider:

If I am asked to do a scientific piece of work and asked to offer my opinion on my work in comparison to another data set, I am professionally beholden to consider all of that other data set.

If I cherry pick only material that suits the client's reason for seeking my services but ignored other parts of that data, I could open myself up for accusations of bias and lack of professionalism.

First off:
Have you ever tested an elite cyclist who has a body fat of 16.9%?
I presume the answer is setting alarm bells off in your mind.

Then consider what the body type is of a person with c. 17% body fat compared with contemporary pictures of Chris Froome. OK that would require the most modest piece of detective work, and maybe searching "chris froome 2007" images was not something Jeroen wanted to contemplate.

I did do the search and I can't find any photo that looks like he had any kind of fat to loose.
Much more the profile of a 8-10% body fat person in the pictures I can see.
As it happens, that judgement coincides with what we know about the Chris Froome from 2007:
(a) he'd been racing several races quite shortly before the testing, so he was trained;
(b) in the book Vavafroome (excerpts of which you can find in google books), Johnny Lee Augustyn alleges that Froome had always been very much into diet, always watched his food, etc.. He's talking about the 2007-8 period there.

But fair enough, the fat percentage shall remain a subjective judgement. So let's not get hung up on that and instead let's get back to facts and the numbers before us.

Here's one right up your street.
BMI = mass ÷ height²

So if I use the data from the 2007 fax, I get the number 21.85.
Were I scientifically illiterate, I would round to 21.
But if I had any sort of rudimentary scientific/engineering/mathematical skills, I would round to 22.
Please tell me: why is it rounded to 21 on the fax?

One possible hypothesis as to why it was rounded the way it was rounded is because the person doing the rounding was as I described above, amateurish.

What to make of Jeroen not noticing the incorrect BMI/weight ratio and, when made aware of it, discarding it as an insignificant rounding issue, is another question.

Actually, more to the point, if Froome was 72.3kg's and not 75kg as the fax stated the BMI level at 21 was the correct figure. My take is whoever fudged the weight figure (like a spouse or something) didn't know the BMI would follow in a liner fashion and forgot to change that number as well. Because a man let alone a professional cycling having 17% body fat at 72Kg is almost beyond absurd.

But clearly that didn't concern Swart, he was already with Richard Moore telling him "he just lost the fat" seconds after Michelle brought the fax down to the testing center.

Its like a Naked Gun movie, total slapstick

No doubt Dr. Swart has scientific integrity, I think he got lost in the lights of the "Esquire" magazine headlines and checked his forensic abilities at the door.

 

[sniper]

To be honest, that is my take as well, but i figured "amateurism" sounds a bit nicer than "blunt forgery".

It;s now almost a year ago that we took that Fax apart. Indeed I remember laughing so hard it was like watching a Jim Abrahams spoof.

The word "chef" being copy pasted before Leyfraz' name on one of the versions but not on the other is one of my favorits.
viewtopic.php?p=1844908#p1844908

The scuff and scratch marks spilling into the binder holes was funny, too!
viewtopic.php?p=1845801#p1845801

 

[Digger]

Re: Re:

...
You're not listening to Jeroen, are you? And to publicly call someone's professional work amateur is quite low. Especially since it was nothing of the sort.

John Swanson

Science is cool, John.

But the fax makes a mockery of it.

Have you even seen the evidence or did you just chime in to toss Jeroen a life line? If the latter, fair enough. If the former, feel free to PM me.

You and Hog are piling on accusations which completely ignore the reality of what happened. Don't like the fax? Disregard it. Now go back and read through the description of the testing, who was involved, and what their relationships are. There's a lot of good explanations there.

Things like saying that the testing was bogus because the hooked up a bike to a wind trainer are, quite frankly, ignorant. Instead, you could have asked about the test setup. How was power measured? What equipment was used? How did you calibrate? <--- Pssst. That was the type of info that made Coyle's paper so embarrassing.

Personally, I think it's always wise to challenge the methods, analysis and conclusions in a paper. You have access to the author, which is very rare. Why don't you make good use of it? To start, do you have a copy of the paper? Maybe arrange to get one if you can. I bet Dr. Swart would provide one.

I'd also ignore the magazine (Esquire?) article. Anything in that article is the responsibility of the editor. While it might not contain any factual errors, the article could never be as complete as the paper it's reporting.

John Swanson

Direct quote from Jeroen at the end of this - 'he just lost the fat'.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/chris-froomes-physiological-test-data-released/

 

[Digger]

Whether Jeroen accepts it or not, he is aligned with Froome now in the same way as Walsh. If and when Froome's story goes wrong then Jeroen will have to ask himself if he was wilfully blind...in the history of cycling we've never seen a transformation like froome.
Reading Riis' book...talking of intervals, downloading his data each night, not doing the long one paced rides of the past, 40 grand time trial bikes, obsession with weight, supplements (legal ones), acupuncture, yet we have Jeroen earlier this year saying it was the anglo Saxons who brought about change in cycling.

 

[Digger]

The fax itself is embarrassing - a two year old could spot the discrepancies - let's cut jeroen slack and say ok he didn't reference it in his final report, fair enough...but there is a direct quote from an interview he gave where he says froome just lost the fat - well in order for you to say that you've got to be basing it on the fax. So you can't have it both ways.
That fax I showed it to some friends and they laughed at how absurd both versions were. But amazingly they could used in defence of froome.