Froome's Data
Comments
-
[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19764079#p19764079]Hercules Rockefeller[/url] wrote:
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.
That's interesting.
Can you provide the evidence he worked with Froome in 07, as well as where I can here him changing his mind about who reached out to him?
No, didn't think so.Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
^ Could you also bung in those Freiburg affidavits you were banging on about on one of your previous accounts? Cheers....a rare 100% loyal Pro Race poster. A poster boy for the community.0
-
^ Could you also bung in those Freiburg affidavits you were banging on about on one of your previous accounts? Cheers.
Oh God, are we back to the Freiburg affadavits?
That brings back bad troll memories...Warning No formatter is installed for the format0 -
^ Could you also bung in those Freiburg affidavits you were banging on about on one of your previous accounts? Cheers.
Oh God, are we back to the Freiburg affadavits?
That brings back bad troll memories...
Free the Freiburg affidavits0 -
Why the fook do the loonies feel the need to just invent crap that's blatantly recognisable as crap from as far away as a flamme rouge0
-
[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19764079#p19764079]Hercules Rockefeller[/url] wrote:
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.
That's interesting.
Can you provide the evidence he worked with Froome in 07, as well as where I can here him changing his mind about who reached out to him?
No, didn't think so.
Now now, Iain, they're from the same continent. That should suffice0 -
[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19764132#p19764132]Richmond Racer 2[/url] wrote:Why the fook do the loonies feel the need to just invent crap that's blatantly recognisable as crap from as far away as a flamme rouge
Because there's nothing else darlin'.
I'm currently looking for some evidence under a hot dog in a baguette.
Hmm, none there either.0 -
Richmond Racer 2 wrote:Now now, Iain, they're from the same continent. That should suffice
That's a slam dunk right there
I like when i get called a Sky fan-boi - I often think that you must be in pieces reading that kind of thing.Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
Richmond Racer 2 wrote:Now now, Iain, they're from the same continent. That should suffice
That's a slam dunk right there
I like when i get called a Sky fan-boi - I often think that you must be in pieces reading that kind of thing.
Bwahahahahajaja
Rapha Sky cap for Iain!0 -
Richmond Racer 2 wrote:Now now, Iain, they're from the same continent. That should suffice
That's a slam dunk right there
I like when i get called a Sky fan-boi - I often think that you must be in pieces reading that kind of thing.
You Brits just can't help yourselves. So much denial....a rare 100% loyal Pro Race poster. A poster boy for the community.0 -
[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19764144#p19764144]Richmond Racer 2[/url] wrote:Richmond Racer 2 wrote:Now now, Iain, they're from the same continent. That should suffice
That's a slam dunk right there
I like when i get called a Sky fan-boi - I often think that you must be in pieces reading that kind of thing.
Bwahahahahajaja
Rapha Sky cap for Iain!
David Millar was pictured wearing a Rapha cap once. Just sayin'0 -
Hercules Rockefeller is Whitetrashboy?0
-
Hercules Rockefeller is Whitetrashboy?
No stranger to a spectacular meltdown over data forensics. [Fruity language warning]...a rare 100% loyal Pro Race poster. A poster boy for the community.0 -
Guess what? I'm not a poster with a previous account, and definitely not WhiteTrashBoy. I do remember when that nut job got booted from the clinic though.^ Could you also bung in those Freiburg affidavits you were banging on about on one of your previous accounts? Cheers.
Feel free to guess again if you must but I guarantee you'll be wrong.
Also, not everyone who posts here lives in the UK :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock:
I know it's a difficult concept but there are other time zones.....Supporter of Sky, transparency and clean cycling. Opponent of pseudoscience.
The greatest clean cycling performance ever http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-eiN2vfGKhk0 -
Let's start:[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19764079#p19764079]Hercules Rockefeller[/url] wrote:
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.
That's interesting.
Can you provide the evidence he worked with Froome in 07, as well as where I can here him changing his mind about who reached out to him?
No, didn't think so.
Swart was John Lee Augustyn's coach for most of his pro career, including Barloworld:
"Thanks also to Dr Jeroen Swart my personal coach for all the years that he has mentored and continued to support me all the way through my difficult path, his knowledge is beyond this world"
He's been the Head Coach of SA's High Performance Cycling Centre and worked there for years, after retiring from Pro MTB.
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/john-lee-augustyn-announces-second-and-final-retirement/
Swart has been a member of Drug Free Sport - SA's equivalent to UKADA for years:
"Apart from being a member of the anti-doping review commission, Dr. Jeroen Swart will perform the duty of race doctor for The Cell C Tour of South Africa 2011 event."
http://www.nmbt.co.za/news/anti-doping_professionals_to_join_the_cell_c_tour_of_south_africa.html
So, we have a guy who coached one of his friends, extensively, and who knows how many more, while on a team that was disbanded due to doping violations. On top of that, Augustyn, along with Juan Mauricio Soler were the two best riders in the team by a fair way.Supporter of Sky, transparency and clean cycling. Opponent of pseudoscience.
The greatest clean cycling performance ever http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-eiN2vfGKhk0 -
I just had a quick gander at the Asylum. Some poor bloke called bigcog is getting accused of being me. I can't imagine what he's thinking.
That's Rich, that is
Is his chosen specialist subject great Welsh hockey teams of the last 20 years? :P0 -
[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19764132#p19764132]Richmond Racer 2[/url] wrote:Why the fook do the loonies feel the need to just invent crap that's blatantly recognisable as crap from as far away as a flamme rouge
Because there's nothing else darlin'.
I'm currently looking for some evidence under a hot dog in a baguette.
Hmm, none there either.
Bizarre characters. Not the complete chainset0 -
[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19764231#p19764231]Hercules Rockefeller[/url] wrote:
Let's start:[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19764079#p19764079]Hercules Rockefeller[/url] wrote:
That's interesting.
Can you provide the evidence he worked with Froome in 07, as well as where I can here him changing his mind about who reached out to him?
No, didn't think so.
I think you responded to the wrong post mate? I can't see any answers to my questions here?Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19764231#p19764231]Hercules Rockefeller[/url] wrote:
Let's start:[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19764079#p19764079]Hercules Rockefeller[/url] wrote:
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.
That's interesting.
Can you provide the evidence he worked with Froome in 07, as well as where I can here him changing his mind about who reached out to him?
No, didn't think so.
Swart was John Lee Augustyn's coach for most of his pro career, including Barloworld:
"Thanks also to Dr Jeroen Swart my personal coach for all the years that he has mentored and continued to support me all the way through my difficult path, his knowledge is beyond this world"
He's been the Head Coach of SA's High Performance Cycling Centre and worked there for years, after retiring from Pro MTB.
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/john-lee-augustyn-announces-second-and-final-retirement/
Swart has been a member of Drug Free Sport - SA's equivalent to UKADA for years:
"Apart from being a member of the anti-doping review commission, Dr. Jeroen Swart will perform the duty of race doctor for The Cell C Tour of South Africa 2011 event."
http://www.nmbt.co.za/news/anti-doping_professionals_to_join_the_cell_c_tour_of_south_africa.html
So, we have a guy who coached one of his friends, extensively, and who knows how many more, while on a team that was disbanded due to doping violations. On top of that, Augustyn, along with Juan Mauricio Soler were the two best riders in the team by a fair way.
You're in severe danger of showing your @rse here. You expressly stated that Swart worked with Froome. You've been called out on this and have tried to cover your tracks with a post which now qualifies that as Swart being "a guy who coached one of his friends"
You may or may not be whitetrashboy but the one thing he did that continued to cause great annoyance was to make and repeat ad nauseum statements that he would try and pass off as fact but fail to substantiate in any way.
And here in lies the difference between BRPR and the Clinic. Yes we speculate but ultimately the jury remains out until facts are proven. Now if you've been caught out on the Froome/Swart point just man up and say so...honestly it won't hurt and no-one will think any the less of you. in fact due to the unique nature of internet forums you will even be spared looks of pity as you walk down the street. If you don't admit your mistake you'll need to add credibility to your list to Santa this Christmas.
To misquote a bike rider "extraordinary allegations require just bog standard factual back up"0 -
So not a single shred of evidence then?[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19764231#p19764231]Hercules Rockefeller[/url] wrote:
Let's start:[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19764079#p19764079]Hercules Rockefeller[/url] wrote:
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.
That's interesting.
Can you provide the evidence he worked with Froome in 07, as well as where I can here him changing his mind about who reached out to him?
No, didn't think so.
Swart was John Lee Augustyn's coach for most of his pro career, including Barloworld:
"Thanks also to Dr Jeroen Swart my personal coach for all the years that he has mentored and continued to support me all the way through my difficult path, his knowledge is beyond this world"
He's been the Head Coach of SA's High Performance Cycling Centre and worked there for years, after retiring from Pro MTB.
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/john-lee-augustyn-announces-second-and-final-retirement/
Swart has been a member of Drug Free Sport - SA's equivalent to UKADA for years:
"Apart from being a member of the anti-doping review commission, Dr. Jeroen Swart will perform the duty of race doctor for The Cell C Tour of South Africa 2011 event."
http://www.nmbt.co.za/news/anti-doping_professionals_to_join_the_cell_c_tour_of_south_africa.html
So, we have a guy who coached one of his friends, extensively, and who knows how many more, while on a team that was disbanded due to doping violations. On top of that, Augustyn, along with Juan Mauricio Soler were the two best riders in the team by a fair way.
As others have said, most rational people, have absolutely no idea whether Froome or anyone else for that matter is doping or not. However, until evidence is provided that they are doping, most rational people, are not going to bandy about accusations and believe the innuendo and pseudo science that surrounds some groups of cycling 'fans'.
Just in the same way as I have no idea if your are a drug ravaged psychopathic murderer but in the absence of any evidence either way I'm prepared to give you the benefit of the doubt
0 -
Just finished listening to part 2 of the podcast.
Tucker has some intense cognitive dissonance going on.
The tests showed Froome has the physiology to win the TdF, which was hardly unexpected.
The 2007 data suggests that he's had the potential since that time.
There's a question about how he went from having potential to delivering it, and why it apparently was a "transformation" (a loaded term). There are a number of not incompatible hypotheses regarding this change:
Weight loss
Improved race craft (staying out of the wind, not drifting out and having to make places up, riding smarter)
Marginal gains of various types
Bilharzia
Improved training
Race role (when looking at early performances, what was his actual job at the time?)
Race strategy (similar to race craft, but focussed on when and how to attack/chase)
Motivation / psychology
Doping
Tucker has been inordinately keen to dismiss some of these factors - Marginal gains are dismissively reduced to not eating Nutella, and besides "everyone else is doing the same stuff". That's not quite correct: ignoring some of the innovations Sky have brought - e.g. warming down on rollers - is just intellectual dishonesty. And while many teams may be doing some of the things Sky do, as yet there are few that do them all - possibly due to budget restrictions. Tucker further pollutes the debate by likening the attention to detail to Armstrong, it's the Godwin's law of cycling. It's also worth pointing out that if Sky riders - and their opponents - believe Sky have some secret magic then this gives them the sort of psychological advantage they need when they're deep in the pain cave on a mountain somewhere. Even if Sky's marginal gains don't have any real effect, the belief that they do is worth cultivating. That's why the GB Olympics team let the rumour slip out that they had "rounder wheels". That's how dodgy doctors of the past have (anecdotally, I think it may have been Jesper Skibby that came out with the story) coaxed massive performances out of riders with a saline injection, telling them it was some sort of Asterix style magic potion.
Better training has also been dismissed: "everyone goes to Tenerife". Yes, they do now. But there's plenty of anecdotal evidence that Sky's training camps are more intense and focussed than other teams' - that's just from rider testimony.
On those two subjects alone, Tucker demonstrates a pathetic cynicism, not addressing actual argument, but throwing out rhetorical one liners. It's those one liners that the inmates at The Asylum lap up. Here's a genuine scientist, a guy who can do proper maths and has a Dr. in front of his name saying the same stuff as them. His scientific credentials are being used to bolster and validate positions where he has no more credibility than your average bloke down the pub, not just the logical fallacy of Argument from Authority, but argument from false authority.
And everything Tucker says is backed by the appeal to history. Despite the advances that have undoubtedly been made (Epo test, Bio passport) and that he acknowledges. Some of his argument is even predicated on a completely false description of the current culture of the peloton, as if we can't remember what genuine omerta looked like. Apparently riders aren't outspoken about doping (riiiiight). They would be more believable if they were (an argument Paula Radcliffe might like to take up with him, as he's pretty unconvinced of her cleanliness and she's been very outspoken).
Tucker really should stick to science, because whenever he strays from the rigour of mathematics he fails to address reality.Warning No formatter is installed for the format0 -
When he started making comparisons with Armstrong with regard to these things all I could I think was "Yes he did. And that's partly why he won seven in a row." Armstrong doped. So did his rivals. It wasn't the only variable. He did a lot of legitimate things really well too.Tucker has been inordinately keen to dismiss some of these factors - Marginal gains are dismissively reduced to not eating Nutella, and besides "everyone else is doing the same stuff". That's not quite correct: ignoring some of the innovations Sky have brought - e.g. warming down on rollers - is just intellectual dishonesty. And while many teams may be doing some of the things Sky do, as yet there are few that do them all - possibly due to budget restrictions. Tucker further pollutes the debate by likening the attention to detail to Armstrong, it's the Godwin's law of cycling.
I think Tucker has a very sketchy knowledge of cycling. He seems to think everything is a final climb run like a 100m athletics race - in lanes as fast as possible from start to finish - and that's it. And good test results will automatically correlate with good road resultsTwitter: @RichN950 -
I'm going to assume you are referring to No tA Doctor's post, not my one than sneaked in between.^^Outstanding Sir! Outstanding!
That should win the 12 Days of Christmas Thread!Twitter: @RichN950 -
When he started making comparisons with Armstrong with regard to these things all I could I think was "Yes he did. And that's partly why he won seven in a row." Armstrong doped. So did his rivals. It wasn't the only variable. He did a lot of legitimate things really well too.Tucker has been inordinately keen to dismiss some of these factors - Marginal gains are dismissively reduced to not eating Nutella, and besides "everyone else is doing the same stuff". That's not quite correct: ignoring some of the innovations Sky have brought - e.g. warming down on rollers - is just intellectual dishonesty. And while many teams may be doing some of the things Sky do, as yet there are few that do them all - possibly due to budget restrictions. Tucker further pollutes the debate by likening the attention to detail to Armstrong, it's the Godwin's law of cycling.
I think Tucker has a very sketchy knowledge of cycling. He seems to think everything is a final climb run like a 100m athletics race - in lanes as fast as possible from start to finish - and that's it. And good test results will automatically correlate with good road results
Agreed on both points, though to be fair, there is a narrative that's quite common that riders and teams neglected doing the right things as doping was a short-cut. I think it has some validity, but it's certainly not true that riders just sat around stuffing themselves on pizza and burgers, jacked up on epo and rocked up to a race.
Tucker's cycling knowledge is definitely deficient. While the TV and stopwatch power estimates were eventually shown to be reasonably accurate, the decontextualisation of the climbs themselves - how they were raced, what happened in the stage before the climb (not just how many cols, but what was going on in the peloton) is magnificently naive.
I actually think Tucker has done some decent work in the past on cycling, but only where he's looked at broad trends rather than individual performances. That was a path that e.g. Vaughters wanted to take to show the peloton was getting cleaner - and I think it can work at that level.
In fact, I have a hypothesis that Tucker should take a look at in that context.
The high point of doping, and the fastest climbing times, were found in the early to mid 2000s. With the Epo test and the bio passport we saw a drop in speed/power, and more recently we have apparently seen a sligt increase again.
But this, in itself, isn't a clear indication of renewed doping (albeit within the confines of the bio passport parameters). To draw that conclusion, you would have to insist (among other things) that the make-up of the peloton hadn't changed over time.
The peloton, however, is selected from a far, far larger pool of riders, and is continually renewed from it as riders retire or are fired. Riders that aren't fast enough either don't make it to the pro ranks, or get spat out again pretty quickly.
But we know that with an established max hematocrit of 50% and no other test, riders who have a high natural hematocrit can't gain much - if any - advantage from epo/transfusion. Two equally good riders, one with high natural hematocrit, one with low, have vastly different potentials when doped. In a peloton were we have established that doping was rife, riders would effectively have been selected in those years according to their doping response.
That pool of riders, that were selected on doping response during the dark years, is slowly being renewed with younger riders. When the bio passport and epo test were introduced, the doping-response selected riders had their advantage cut, but the peloton contained, broadly speaking, only those riders (over exaggeration maybe, but still..). Thus their speed/power dropped. If the peloton had been stuffed full of riders with naturally high hematocrit - as you would maybe expect to see in a clean selection - then performance would have been less severely affected.
I think that's a plausible explanation for what we're seeing now. The peloton has been refreshed by riders who have a natural advantage, rather than a superb doping response. They're faster than riders selected on the advantage they can gain from epo.
There you go Tucker - have at it. Gather some statistics. Use some of your vaunted power data - re-contextualised - to devise a statistical analysis that could test this theory. There's plenty of interesting work to do, if you want to do something useful.Warning No formatter is installed for the format0 -
I don't know, you go away on sabbatical for a semester and it's like you never left. Good to see everyone is staying true to form and there are no surprising changes in performance that are detectable using my current highly scientific model.
For what it's worth I had to turn Tucker off before something nasty befell poor Mr Doodles. I may venture back into the particular pain cave later but only with the chemical assistance of some wijn.
Anyway how many days do we have to wait until the racing (not that running and sliding round fields lark) starts again? I'm being too lazy to count for myself.Correlation is not causation.0 -
I'd like to hear the scientists take on the career so far of Joe Dombrowski
This is a kid who was seen as the next big thing as an U23, beating Aru in the Baby Giro.
But at Sky - nothing. For two years
Then some results for Garmin in the US, but then just in the US*.
If he becomes a contender in his fourth or fifth years, will it be a surprise?
*Pop quiz - why did Joe thrive in the US? (I think I know but I'm testing you)Twitter: @RichN950 -
I'd like to hear the scientists take on the career so far of Joe Dombrowski
This is a kid who was seen as the next big thing as an U23, beating Aru in the Baby Giro.
But at Sky - nothing. For two years
Then some results for Garmin in the US, but then just in the US*.
If he becomes a contender in his fourth or fifth years, will it be a surprise?
*Pop quiz - why did Joe thrive in the US? (I think I know but I'm testing you)
Simply because he had a leaders role in the US races.0 -
In a recent interview he seemed to be suggesting that it was because Vaughters let him eat occasionally and taught him how to ride round corners.Warning No formatter is installed for the format0
