Froome's Data
Comments
-
That clinic makes me so glad we have the BR Pro Race forum.
So many oddballs.
It can be described as innocent til proven guilty on here, whereas on there it is guilty using whatever they can twist to fit. It's very sad really.
That was my issue with what I read about the BR forum on the Clinic; that guy was making out like this forum is full of Sky/Froome fanbois which I don't believe it is. The impression I get is that most people on here wouldn't be all that shocked to find out Froome was doping, we just don't all agree that the evidence (such at it is) proves anything.
Also it's a bike racing forum not a doping-specific forum like the Clinic, so naturally most of us don't want to talk about doping all the god damn time... I have seen several respected posters on this forum express doubts about Froome but they don't feel the need to discuss it continually, for that reason.0 -
That clinic makes me so glad we have the BR Pro Race forum.
So many oddballs.
It can be described as innocent til proven guilty on here, whereas on there it is guilty using whatever they can twist to fit. It's very sad really.
That was my issue with what I read about the BR forum on the Clinic; that guy was making out like this forum is full of Sky/Froome fanbois which I don't believe it is. The impression I get is that most people on here wouldn't be all that shocked to find out Froome was doping, we just don't all agree that the evidence (such at it is) proves anything.
Also it's a bike racing forum not a doping-specific forum like the Clinic, so naturally most of us don't want to talk about doping all the god damn time... I have seen several respected posters on this forum express doubts about Froome but they don't feel the need to discuss it continually, for that reason.
Nail on head.
I don't think Froome is doping, but I wouldn't be completely shocked if we found out he was.
And one of the things that has most annoyed me with Tucker is he persists in accusing me (and anyone that questions his impartiality) of being either a Froome/Sky fanboy or a nationalist of some flavour. I don't even like Froome. I like a fair few of the British riders, I quite like Sky, but I'd swap them all for a Qhubeka win, preferably by a black African rider.Warning No formatter is installed for the format0 -
Point on Tucker which amused me in Part 1 of podcast. When he was asked about his cynicism, he said humans do pattern recognition and there was a pattern. What a failed to mention is humans find patterns when there is no pattern, as we get comfort from the familiar.Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0
-
The patterns are there, man, they're there. You just need to open your mind to see them, man.Point on Tucker which amused me in Part 1 of podcast.
When he was asked about his cynicism, he said humans do pattern recognition and there was a pattern. What a failed to mention is humans find patterns
when there is no pattern, as we get comfort from the familiar.Warning No formatter is installed for the format0 -
The weightloss which supported the theory that Froome doped using AICAR and was proven by comparing pictures of Froome pre and post Sky, when confirmed by data released by Swart, wasn't relevant anyway and didn't happen as proven by pictures of Froome pre and post Sky.
That's a head scratcher.“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
I have heard Part 1 of the podcast only. I have never heard either Swart or Tucker before, and I don't do Twitbook or whatever.
But I have interviewed and hired lots of people.
Based only on the audio, Swart: focused, maybe a bit of a geek. Tucker: DelBoy, bit of a bullshixxer. I know which one I'd hire.
So there you are.0 -
No it's been around for years. Lance Armstrong showed us all how to identify it from a mile away, just one of the many things that we should be grateful to him for.Veloclinic's article is one of the worst bits of pseudoscientific bumwee I ve seen in a long while...
Proof that if you write something that looks scientific, gullible people will believe it
Is 'pseudoscience' the latest glib insult these days? - it seems to be a very popular method of dismissing something you don't like wrt cycling performance analysis. He's got a slightly idiosyncratic approach but he's not a pseudoscientist by any stretch.
Sheesh, everyone knows this, except for the haterz of course.Supporter of Sky, transparency and clean cycling. Opponent of pseudoscience.
The greatest clean cycling performance ever http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-eiN2vfGKhk0 -
I thought they were both looking for different things from data.Based only on the audio, Swart: focused, maybe a bit of a geek. Tucker: DelBoy, bit of a bullshixxer. I know which one I'd hire.
So there you are.
Swart: He was interested in the physiology it takes to be a Tour winner
Tucker: He just seems only to be interested in the doping angle
Ultimately, as Freibe says in part one - you are never going be able to draw any doping conclusions from performance data as there are too many variables.
The best it can do is flag up suspicions, but you can get exactly the same by just watching the races. It's no different than any old fan seeing a surprising performance and thinking "Hmmm, that looks dodgy" but just with a couple of numbers added and a title in the byline.Twitter: @RichN950 -
The patterns are there, man, they're there. You just need to open your mind to see them, man.Point on Tucker which amused me in Part 1 of podcast.
When he was asked about his cynicism, he said humans do pattern recognition and there was a pattern. What a failed to mention is humans find patterns
when there is no pattern, as we get comfort from the familiar.
That made me laugh - a lot.0 -
just for fun, where was the post?
Edit - Found it old chaps, terribly spiffing (sic)
Come on... make life easy for me please! I can't be wading through all that...0 -
So... Part 2 reactions?
Tucker more vocal in his skepticism/suspicions and Swart nicely pinning him down.
Who are these extreme 'Chris Froome is clean fans' that Tucker refers to? Other than Michelle perhaps...0 -
just for fun, where was the post?
Edit - Found it old chaps, terribly spiffing (sic)
Come on... make life easy for me please! I can't be wading through all that...
It's nothing really dish. Apparently we re all Whit British Colonialists who have nt got over losing the empire.
...kayWe're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
- @ddraver0 -
So... Part 2 reactions?
Tucker more vocal in his skepticism/suspicions and Swart nicely pinning him down.
Who are these extreme 'Chris Froome is clean fans' that Tucker refers to? Other than Michelle perhaps...
I think Tucker recovers a bit from the first half but he is still (IMO) not offering genuine solutions to Daniel Friebe's Question...
Swart has the awkward position of saying that there is zero evidence that Sky have doped and then has to sit there while Tucker gives the usual spiel about "Armstrong did that". The trouble is that Swarts position is much less attractive than Tuckers rant against dirty lying cheatsWe're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
- @ddraver0 -
I thought part 2 sucked. Lionel sounded like a Sky fanboy, Swart like a Froome apologist - "How would you feel as a human", and Tucker was able to waffle about generic "questions" with a nauseating air of righteous scepticism. Scientists should stick to science, and journalists to journalism.
As a result, the 2015 numbers and 2007 tests will be buried. Poor....a rare 100% loyal Pro Race poster. A poster boy for the community.0 -
I thought part 2 sucked. Lionel sounded like a Sky fanboy, Swart like a Froome apologist - "How would you feel as a human", and Tucker was able to waffle about generic "questions" with a nauseating air of righteous scepticism. Scientists should stick to science, and journalists to journalism.
As a result, the 2015 numbers and 2007 tests will be buried. Poor.
Harsh. Though Tucker had to concede that cycling is cleaner, he's got no evidence Froome is doping, and that he can't just accuse people of doping on the basis of patterns...
Agree on Lionel and to an extent Swart.0 -
I thought part 2 sucked. Lionel sounded like a Sky fanboy, Swart like a Froome apologist - "How would you feel as a human", and Tucker was able to waffle about generic "questions" with a nauseating air of righteous scepticism. Scientists should stick to science, and journalists to journalism.
As a result, the 2015 numbers and 2007 tests will be buried. Poor.
Harsh. Though Tucker had to concede that cycling is cleaner, he's got no evidence Froome is doping, and that he can't just accuse people of doping on the basis of patterns...
Agree on Lionel and to an extent Swart.
It is. I'm generally a huge fan. But this was a badly missed opportunity. We had the first serious numbers from a multiple Tour winner, his 2007 tests, two expert physiologists/sports scientists, a very good cycling journalist, and oceans of time. But Lionel starts with editorial about marginal gains (FFS), and Swart digresses into US Postal tactical nuances. As a result, the opportunity to contrast real data with cynical suspicion mongering was lost....a rare 100% loyal Pro Race poster. A poster boy for the community.0 -
I thought part 2 sucked. Lionel sounded like a Sky fanboy, Swart like a Froome apologist - "How would you feel as a human", and Tucker was able to waffle about generic "questions" with a nauseating air of righteous scepticism. Scientists should stick to science, and journalists to journalism.
As a result, the 2015 numbers and 2007 tests will be buried. Poor.
Harsh. Though Tucker had to concede that cycling is cleaner, he's got no evidence Froome is doping, and that he can't just accuse people of doping on the basis of patterns...
Agree on Lionel and to an extent Swart.
Tucker left his trousers down as usual. He's sounding more and more like a Clinic habitue. The only answer for him to success appears to be doping. I'm sure he feels just the same re rugby in his sphere of work with World Rugby0 -
They let Tucker prattle on for too long with his "I make no apology for my stance... Because of Lance" stance. All this talk of "cyclists are to blame for (historically) bringing this on themselves" is fine to a point, but I think that point has passed now. The conversation is moving on.
Would Tucker appreciate always having his work as a sports doc questioned because he's in the same line of work as the tainted Ferrari, Conconi and Fuentes? (Or for that matter, would Birnie, or any journalist, enjoy having their work disregarded because of the huge list of amoral, underhand and illegal practices of some journalists historically?) I think it's fine to add your voice to the mob - on the digital megaphone that is social media - if you see a performance that you doubt is clean: but to do so as a scientist ( in a related field) is irresponsible without evidence.
Tucker goes on about "context", then cites the one example of when Wiggins blew his stack in the infamous "C**ts" speech - but fails to mention the 48 thousand other interviews where he kept his cool. They talk about how any Tour winner should expect these (doping) questions endlessly (because of Lance, etc), but as Swart admits: if he was a clean athlete, he'd be livid with all the incessant questions/allegations.
With all this casual skepticism being bandied about, here's a peer review for Tucker to contend with: I'm a peer and I think he's a twit.0 -
I'm only 2/3rds the way through Part 1 of the Podcast due to an internet malfunction this morning so forgive me if these questions are answered in either the remainder of part 1 or part 2.
Q1 bearing in mind that we now have '07 and '15 data on Froome if he were to win next year's TdF could we establish (as far as science can) that such a win is doped/none doped or is there still scientific data outstanding/not released?
Q2. In what I've heard so far Tucker was quite defensive of the right to ask questions. However, is it the case that these questions are actually unanswerable as the information or data just doesn't exist?0 -
No doubt now that Swart has shown an ounce of compassion for the treatment dished out to Froome at the Tour, this will become proof that be was bought and the data doctored.
Certain circles can then re-invest St Ross and his PE sidekick. Experts R Us."Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.0 -
-
I've been following this debate, and, of course, the reaction to our podcast, with some interest.
Just to clarify something, although the podcast was split into two, it was one conversation, conducted without a break. This was necessary for logistics reasons because some of the podcast hosts that we use restrict each episode to under an hour, so we had to split it.
So, it wasn't a case of planning to kick off part two with a question about the human impact of being accused of doping by a sports scientist, it was just the direction the conversation went in over the course of an hour and a half.
As for the accusation of being a Sky fan boi, well, I've had enough run-ins with them over the years to know that's not the case. I was just pointing a counter point-of-view to Ross Tucker to see what his response would be. Having said that, Richard sometimes reminds me: "Well, you do look like a fat Dave Brailsford."0 -
[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19763885#p19763885]Blazing Saddles[/url] wrote:No doubt now that Swart has shown an ounce of compassion for the treatment dished out to Froome at the Tour, this will become proof that be was bought and the data doctored.
Certain circles can then re-invest St Ross and his PE sidekick. Experts R Us.
Why would Swart need to be bought if he was already a believer prior to the 2015 tests?0 -
It is pseudoscience - I use the word very deliberately - because it purports to offer a scientific approach to a problem when in reality, the approach is entirely non-scientific, contains massive holes in reasoning and, in fact, does nothing to offer an explanation or solution to the hypothesis or problem.
Not offering and explanation or solution does not make something pseudoscience. He is publishing thoughts and calculations that interrogate the hypothesis that Froome's improvement can be explained by weight loss alone, which seems reasonable. You may have used the word very deliberately but you picked the wrong one.
That's a straw-man hypothesis though. The idea that there must a single defined variable that accounts for all change is entirely unscientific. Puchowitz goes on to provide a single alternative hypothesis, that the improvement is down to doping. He thus invites the conclusion that if it's not all down to weight loss then it must be down to drugs. This is shoddy in the extreme.
Tucker does similar when he reduces marginal gains to not eating Nutella and having your own pillow. No, those two things don't win you a TdF. Nobody has ever claimed they have.
With respect straw man, I'm assuming the article was in response to the quote in Esquire:
“The engine was there all along,” says Swart. “He just lost the fat.”
I'm not defending the entire article - I just find the bandying about of 'pseudoscience' as lazy and tiresome as some of the 'he must be doping because xxx' stuff, especially when it's directed at bona fide sports scientist who is trying to apply their models to real problems. It's how progress and improvements in understanding are made. We all know these models cannot take into account all racing parameters and human psychology.
To be fair to Swart, Esquire is a magazine not a scientific journal - they want a catchy hook, or soundbite, or whatever you want to call it, at the end of the article.
If you listen to what Swart has to say on the cycling podcast it's a lot more measured on that point, and he points out that there are many other factors. Certainly I found it hard the impression he's a rabid Froome defender as some on the Clinic seem to be making out. It'll also be interesting to read the proper paper.
Yes, I do agree - everyone is jumping the gun a little given we've still only got the article which, by necessity, will follow sound bite style practices.0 -
I've been following this debate, and, of course, the reaction to our podcast, with some interest.
Just to clarify something, although the podcast was split into two, it was one conversation, conducted without a break. This was necessary for logistics reasons because some of the podcast hosts that we use restrict each episode to under an hour, so we had to split it.
So, it wasn't a case of planning to kick off part two with a question about the human impact of being accused of doping by a sports scientist, it was just the direction the conversation went in over the course of an hour and a half.
As for the accusation of being a Sky fan boi, well, I've had enough run-ins with them over the years to know that's not the case. I was just pointing a counter point-of-view to Ross Tucker to see what his response would be. Having said that, Richard sometimes reminds me: "Well, you do look like a fat Dave Brailsford."
:shock: :shock:
There'll be none of that once you've completed your Trainer Road program, Lionel
0 -
I'm not all the way through part 2 yet, but enjoying it anyway.
Has Tucker ever spoken publicly about when he worked with Ullrich?Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
As for the accusation of being a Sky fan boi, well, I've had enough run-ins with them over the years to know that's not the case. I was just pointing a counter point-of-view to Ross Tucker to see what his response would be. Having said that, Richard sometimes reminds me: "Well, you do look like a fat Dave Brailsford."
Don't worry. You'll fit right in. This place is heaving with them
I just get as irritated with the notion that Sky "dominance" (which is pretty much just Froome and the olympic gravy-train media) can be ascribed to marginal gains, as I do with its opposite - that it must be doping because everybody applies the same techniques. I personally think it's just a slack repetition of a Brailsford media narrative because he can't/doesn't want to talk about sport much. It also lets people like Tucker off the hook, when he should be defending his scepticism against the facts of the 2015/2007 lab tests. He's said on Twitter that top 5 TDF are at the upper end of plausible. Froome tested upper end of plausible in 2007, so what's his problem?
Thanks for dropping in btw. Since you're here, can I request that next time Dave starts marginalising, you ask "what part of this philosophy led you to leave Froome out of contract pre-Vuelta, when if he'd fallen off, you'd have ditched a multi-tour talent?"...a rare 100% loyal Pro Race poster. A poster boy for the community.0 -
Double post...a rare 100% loyal Pro Race poster. A poster boy for the community.0
-
Sickening isn't it, and it's just because Swart was working with Froome, Augustyn, Hunter, Impey and other Barloworld riders as early as 2007. Well, he's changed his story about who reached out to him for the tests as well - Froome or Cound - a couple of times now but I don't know how that's relevant. Or the fact that Swart has been involved in the South African anti doping authority, including input on doping cases (like Impey's).[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19763885#p19763885]Blazing Saddles[/url] wrote:No doubt now that Swart has shown an ounce of compassion for the treatment dished out to Froome at the Tour, this will become proof that be was bought and the data doctored.
Certain circles can then re-invest St Ross and his PE sidekick. Experts R Us.
I see no reason to believe that he could be bought either.Supporter of Sky, transparency and clean cycling. Opponent of pseudoscience.
The greatest clean cycling performance ever http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-eiN2vfGKhk0
