Froome's Data
Comments
-
He came 14th in the final TT of the 2008 Tour as a first year pro, which shows considerable ability in TTs. In his last TT in 2011 prior to the Vuelta he had come 9th at the Tour de Suisse against a much stronger field (who were all peaking for the Tour).
He was a non-protected domestique going into the 2011 Vuelta, yet that didn't stop him coming 2nd on the Stage 10 TT, ahead of Wiggins. Froome simply wasn't good enough to produce outstanding TT results prior to the 2011 Vuelta. To think that he was holding back due to his DS's orders is nonsensical. He could have earned a better contract and more leadership opportunities on the basis of strong TT results alone. No rider would forfeit these things just because their DS might get angry with them.
In 2011 he had been getting dedicated coaching from Bobby Julich, who's one of the best TT coaches around. He was bound to improve.
So, applying asylum logic:
It wasn't all down to weight after all, weight hypothesis dismissed, ergo it must have been doping.Warning No formatter is installed for the format0 -
I'm asking what you re on about
The UCI/CADF is responsible for passport, not WADA.0 -
Also with regard to veloclinic, he writes "Froome’s TT results in grand tours also increased by a large level change 33, 16, 34, 32, 138, and 39th prior to 2011 Vuelta and 2, 11, 2, 2, 3, 2, 1st etc from 2011 Vuelta on"
That etc is interesting. It obscures three results: 10, 63, 39. Why miss them out? Because they inconveniently ruin the pattern and invite us to ask about context?
Are you suggesting they might be cherry picking data to support their hypothesis? Surely not!0 -
I'm asking what you re on about
The UCI/CADF is responsible for passport, not WADA.
Ah I see you you re deliberatly avoding Bob's point too then. I suppose this means your consistent...We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
- @ddraver0 -
I'm asking what you re on about
The UCI/CADF is responsible for passport, not WADA.
Ah I see you you re deliberatly avoding Bob's point too then. I suppose this means your consistent...
What is his point?0 -
Seriously? It was a single sentence and you can't work it out?
As WADA (the UCI) monitors his passport, we should be reassured that Froome isn't a blood doper?
The problem with that naive line of thinking is that the UCI hasn't been a trustworthy governing body, particularly during the time of Froome's transformation. McQuaid at the helm (obviously corrupt), Zorzoli the doping enabler as chief medical officer, trying to protect Contador after he tested positive, etc.
Even if the UCI could be trusted, Swart should have seen Froome's passport for himself or have another expert evaluate it for him. To not do so and then fail to seriously consider the possibility of doping as a reason for Froome's transformation is irresponsible.0 -
If you're that cynical, why invest the time and effort to either watch profressional cycling or even bother arguing about doping?
If I was that sure the wool was being pulled over our eyes and if I showed as little interest in racing as you do, I wouldn't follow the sport.0 -
Seriously? It was a single sentence and you can't work it out?
As WADA (the UCI) monitors his passport, we should be reassured that Froome isn't a blood doper?
The problem with that naive line of thinking is that the UCI hasn't been a trustworthy governing body, particularly during the time of Froome's transformation. McQuaid at the helm (obviously corrupt), Zorzoli the doping enabler as chief medical officer, trying to protect Contador after he tested positive, etc.
Even if the UCI could be trusted, Swart should have seen Froome's passport for himself or have another expert evaluate it for him. To not do so and then fail to seriously consider the possibility of doping as a reason for Froome's transformation is irresponsible.
The goalposts have been moved so far now that they're not even in the stadium.
You've completely misrepresented what the physiological testing was for, what data it was designed to deliver, what conclusions it would be possible to draw from it and Swart's role in it.
As with the vast majority of Clinic visitors we get, your posts have all been extremely tangential, designed to draw debate into the dark cul-de-sacs where the Clinic paranoiacs are at home, while avoiding the blindingly obvious points you can't answer. You continually attempt to re-frame the debate according to your own patently clear agenda, and it's beyond tedious. You aren't the first, you won't be the last, and none of you have contributed anything worthwhile to the sum of knowledge or understanding on this board.
Please give me one single good reason why I should bother to waste my time trying to engage with you any further.Warning No formatter is installed for the format0 -
Being the closed season, I'm in the back catalogue.
Five stages into re-watching the 2009 and I have learned that the transformation myth is just that."Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.0 -
http://thecyclingpodcast.com/podcast/39-chris-froomes-lab-test
14:45 in
But I guess they would say that as it suits their agenda....Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
Correct. I was also full of whiskey so my sarcasm wasn't working.(I suspect given the time of Rich's pot, he may have been imitating one of our temporary visitors)
Hopefully that's the case, or he needs to get Ashbeck on speed dial for the account hack defence
Excellent. I'm working on a theory that no recent winner of the TdF who competed clean has won Paris-Nice and in fact all the dopers have competed in T-A instead as it is easier to prep and race dirty in Italy. Hopefully it will gain some traction.0 -
Even Swart has said that Froome should release his passport to an independent expert for review:
.CT: I’m not trying to paint Chris into a corner, but Michael Rasmussen said that he when he was blood doping, he would ride the Tour with a haematocrit in the low 40s. In that light, do you think it would have been an option to give the whole bio passport to someone like Michael Ashenden or Robin Parisotto [experts at detecting blood doping – ed.]?
You could say to them, okay, you assess this, come to your conclusions and then just release that conclusion without needing to release all the blood values publicly?
JS: Yes, I think that is a fair suggestion. And it is something that I would certainly suggest to them. So releasing it to an expert to review and for them to provide an opinion, certainly. Releasing it into the public domain doesn’t really add value.0 -
Even Swart has said that Froome should release his passport to an independent expert for review:
.CT: I’m not trying to paint Chris into a corner, but Michael Rasmussen said that he when he was blood doping, he would ride the Tour with a haematocrit in the low 40s. In that light, do you think it would have been an option to give the whole bio passport to someone like Michael Ashenden or Robin Parisotto [experts at detecting blood doping – ed.]?
You could say to them, okay, you assess this, come to your conclusions and then just release that conclusion without needing to release all the blood values publicly?
JS: Yes, I think that is a fair suggestion. And it is something that I would certainly suggest to them. So releasing it to an expert to review and for them to provide an opinion, certainly. Releasing it into the public domain doesn’t really add value.
Dear me.0 -
Who is 'CT' in that conversation with (I assume) Jeroen Swart?
But to the question asked of the latter: haven't Froome's blood values been independently assessed by Frederic Grappe over the last few years - a sports doctor and professor who's reputation Swart seems to respect (as stated in the Cycling Podcast)?0 -
Cycling Tips - it's an interview from their website.Who is 'CT' in that conversation with (I assume) Jeroen Swart?Twitter: @RichN950 -
Ah, bonza. Thanks0
-
Who is 'CT' in that conversation with (I assume) Jeroen Swart?
But to the question asked of the latter: haven't Froome's blood values been independently assessed by Frederic Grappe over the last few years - a sports doctor and professor who's reputation Swart seems to respect (as stated in the Cycling Podcast)?
Grappe was given access to Froome's power data from the 2011-2013. He wasn't given any blood values as far as I know.0 -
Seriously? It was a single sentence and you can't work it out?
As WADA (the UCI) monitors his passport, we should be reassured that Froome isn't a blood doper?
The problem with that naive line of thinking is that the UCI hasn't been a trustworthy governing body, particularly during the time of Froome's transformation. McQuaid at the helm (obviously corrupt), Zorzoli the doping enabler as chief medical officer, trying to protect Contador after he tested positive, etc.
Even if the UCI could be trusted, Swart should have seen Froome's passport for himself or have another expert evaluate it for him. To not do so and then fail to seriously consider the possibility of doping as a reason for Froome's transformation is irresponsible.
The goalposts have been moved so far now that they're not even in the stadium.
You've completely misrepresented what the physiological testing was for, what data it was designed to deliver, what conclusions it would be possible to draw from it and Swart's role in it.
As with the vast majority of Clinic visitors we get, your posts have all been extremely tangential, designed to draw debate into the dark cul-de-sacs where the Clinic paranoiacs are at home, while avoiding the blindingly obvious points you can't answer. You continually attempt to re-frame the debate according to your own patently clear agenda, and it's beyond tedious. You aren't the first, you won't be the last, and none of you have contributed anything worthwhile to the sum of knowledge or understanding on this board.
Please give me one single good reason why I should bother to waste my time trying to engage with you any further.
And none were provided, I see. What a tedious one-dimensional little poster. Latest in a conveyor belt that trot out the same trite lines. Oh for one intelligent one, just for the novelty value
"I would challenge you to a battle of wits, but I see you are unarmed." - William Shakespeare0 -
Even Swart has said that Froome should release his passport to an independent expert for review:
.CT: I’m not trying to paint Chris into a corner, but Michael Rasmussen said that he when he was blood doping, he would ride the Tour with a haematocrit in the low 40s. In that light, do you think it would have been an option to give the whole bio passport to someone like Michael Ashenden or Robin Parisotto [experts at detecting blood doping – ed.]?
You could say to them, okay, you assess this, come to your conclusions and then just release that conclusion without needing to release all the blood values publicly?
JS: Yes, I think that is a fair suggestion. And it is something that I would certainly suggest to them. So releasing it to an expert to review and for them to provide an opinion, certainly. Releasing it into the public domain doesn’t really add value.
Isn't the entire point of the passport that it is reviewed by independent experts?"In many ways, my story was that of a raging, Christ-like figure who hauled himself off the cross, looked up at the Romans with blood in his eyes and said 'My turn, sock cookers'"
@gietvangent0 -
[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19765220#p19765220]disgruntledgoat[/url] wrote:Even Swart has said that Froome should release his passport to an independent expert for review:
.CT: I’m not trying to paint Chris into a corner, but Michael Rasmussen said that he when he was blood doping, he would ride the Tour with a haematocrit in the low 40s. In that light, do you think it would have been an option to give the whole bio passport to someone like Michael Ashenden or Robin Parisotto [experts at detecting blood doping – ed.]?
You could say to them, okay, you assess this, come to your conclusions and then just release that conclusion without needing to release all the blood values publicly?
JS: Yes, I think that is a fair suggestion. And it is something that I would certainly suggest to them. So releasing it to an expert to review and for them to provide an opinion, certainly. Releasing it into the public domain doesn’t really add value.
Isn't the entire point of the passport that it is reviewed by independent experts?
Worth a reminder of how the passport works.
http://inrng.com/2013/10/uci-bio-passport-tiernan-locke/
I be interested in how posters who would advocate releasing data to their favourite expert think this would add to the process, how they'd deal with the implications of an adverse finding and how they'd deal with cases where the rider is currently subject to target testing.“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
Blood passport values are looked at as anonymous sets of data too to ensure impartiality on part of the independent expert, non?0
-
Blood passport values are looked at as anonymous sets of data too to ensure impartiality on part of the independent expert, non?
Yes, as with all anti-doping stuff.
Central thing to science being able to prove things "blind" and without bias. But that sort of thing confuses our visitors.Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
Blood passport values are looked at as anonymous sets of data too to ensure impartiality on part of the independent expert, non?
Yup. 3 of them as I recall"In many ways, my story was that of a raging, Christ-like figure who hauled himself off the cross, looked up at the Romans with blood in his eyes and said 'My turn, sock cookers'"
@gietvangent0 -
-
[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19765220#p19765220]disgruntledgoat[/url] wrote:
Isn't the entire point of the passport that it is reviewed by independent experts?
I've already addressed this:... the UCI hasn't been a trustworthy governing body, particularly during the time of Froome's transformation. McQuaid at the helm (obviously corrupt), Zorzoli the doping enabler as chief medical officer, trying to protect Contador after he tested positive, etc.
As it stands, the UCI ultimately retains control over the biological passport process, regardless of how independent CADF is supposed to be.
A clean rider should have nothing to fear from releasing his passport to an independent expert for review. Froome seems very reluctant to do so for some reason.0 -
A clean rider should have nothing to fear from releasing his passport to an independent expert for review. Froome seems very reluctant to do so for some reason.
Because people like you have repeatadly and consistently shown that you have zero interest in the results (see C, 2015-1, C, 2015-2, C, 2015-3).
References
1 C, C., 2015. Froome's Data. Bikeradar Forum, pp37
2 C, C., 2015. Froome's Data. Bikeradar Forum, pp38
3 C, C., 2015. Froome's Data. Bikeradar Forum, pp39We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
- @ddraver0 -
[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19765220#p19765220]disgruntledgoat[/url] wrote:
Isn't the entire point of the passport that it is reviewed by independent experts?
I've already addressed this:... the UCI hasn't been a trustworthy governing body, particularly during the time of Froome's transformation. McQuaid at the helm (obviously corrupt), Zorzoli the doping enabler as chief medical officer, trying to protect Contador after he tested positive, etc.
As it stands, the UCI ultimately retains control over the biological passport process, regardless of how independent CADF is supposed to be.
A clean rider should have nothing to fear from releasing his passport to an independent expert for review. Froome seems very reluctant to do so for some reason.
But the passport isn't administered by the uci. That was one of its selling points. What dont you like about statistical deviation from a baseline triggering a review of amonymised data by 3 actual experts to explain it?
Why should froome have to comply to a different set of rules than Bart de Backer or Nacer Bouhanni or Brent Bookwalter? If you don't like the bio passport or cycling's current anti doping processes, you'd be better off directing your ire at them than at one rider you don't like."In many ways, my story was that of a raging, Christ-like figure who hauled himself off the cross, looked up at the Romans with blood in his eyes and said 'My turn, sock cookers'"
@gietvangent0
