Chris Froome to publish performance data following lab tests

Quote:

I'm really surprised that some people, despite the actual history of the sport, and more recently the widespread allegations in athletics, that have no scepticism about the performances we see.

The thing about skepticism is that it should cut *both* ways.

I'm really surprised that some people are prepared to 'point the finger and shout DOPER' without any empirical evidence. Why should be believe those who accuse impropriety any more than those who claim innocence?

In the end, it has to come down to facts, due process and 'innocent until proven guilty'. Anything else is simply not sport.

I am fully aware that 'balance of power' between the dug testers and the dug cheats is not good right now, and the bio passport is not looking like the weapon we hoped.... but remember, the samples taken now can be retested over the next 10 years as new testing technology is developed. The wheels of justice may turn slowly, and personally I would rather wait and get it right than jump to knee-jerk accusations.

Quote:

In which case you must be let down all the time....you must really hate Danielson right now?

riders like Danielson let themselves down, not me. It's his reputation in the gutter.

He has aero holes throughout his body, cause by being munched on by tiny snails. Go Snail Power!

To be fair, we know the size of his engine. There is nothing secret about the performance he put in:

* The mountains he climbed, the topographical data is public.
* The time he climbed it in, you can get from the TV with a high degree of accuracy
* The wind observations on the day, those are available on the Internet
* The physics of what energy it takes to do that climb, very well understood and the calculations can give quite accurate numbers
* Froome's weight isn't publically known, luckily the weight is not critical to the calculations. It washes away once you normalise to W/kg.

(The way the numbers and bio-mechanics work, it turns out you can normalise to a standard mass. The physical power calculation isn't super-sensitive to weight to begin with, and anyway, heavier riders put out more power but have more drag, and the reverse for lighter riders. So you can assume a reasonable weight and the error will be insignificant).

People like veloclinic and ammattipyoraily had run those calculations before and came up with numbers for various riders. ammattipyoraily has also validated those numbers with power-meter data from co-operative pros. The calculations and the power-meters tally quite closely (and the power-meters have their own inaccuracies).

From that the range for his VO₂Max can be worked out, depending on what his efficiency might be - which is unknown. From what I've read from Ross Tucker, Froome has to have either a huge VO₂Max or very high efficiency or some combination in between.

The question isn't "Does Froome have a big engine" - you only have to watch the TV to see he clearly has a massive one.

The question is "How does Froome have such a big engine?". Physiological testing could give some insight into efficiency, but it'd probably require historical and ongoing longitudinal testing + blood data to shed real light on how Froome has and is reaching those levels.

Blood values plus VO2 Max, that's all we need - it will at least give us an idea of the size of his engine! Let's see what he releases in this 'independent' test!

I don't know why he is bothering either. I mean it will be interesting to see what his values are and everything, but as others have pointed out it is not a catagorical reposte to doping chargers. After all Armstromg did exactly the same thing.

Posting values as a snap shot in time hardly provides neysayers with the consistent information that you would require. He'd be better off voluntarily putting himself before WADA as often as they would be satisfied that they had the information they needed to guarantee his veracity.

I'm really surprised that some people, despite the actual history of the sport, and more recently the widespread allegations in athletics, that have no scepticism about the performances we see.

Is it best to turn a blind eye and ignore what we see without regard to the consequences? Anyone remember Tommy Simpson or the dead Dutch riders who died in their sleep?

Some people ask 'how do you enjoy the sport if you think doping goes on?' I think that's a very simplistic approach to a complex issue. Are you that facile that you can only believe in the sport there is no doping? In which case you must be let down all the time....you must really hate Danielson right now?

Plenty of people question Valverde, etc. That's just "whataboutery".

It must be horrendously frustrating. As others have said if you're so convinced cyclists dope why not go back to watching footy. Or is it just Froome/Sky that must be faulty?

Funny no one questions Valverdes 3rd place. 6 years older than Froome, 7 older than G, 10 years older than Quintana. Murky never satisfactorily resolved involvement in Operation Puerto and at the or near the front of races all season long. I know where my suspicions lie .

I don't know why he bothers, nothing will satisfy those who see dope everywhere they turn.

Damned if they do, damned if they don't.
It's like conspiracy theories, you can publish as many facts and as much data as you want on the moon landings/9.11/JFK/[insert conspiracy of choice], there'll always be someone who simply claims that you're part of the conspiracy and so you end up in a Catch-22.

Sky release his data and all the ultra-negative people that seem to frequent this place say they're being selective, they're hiding the truth, it doesn't prove anything either way.
Sky don't release his data and they're hiding the truth again.

I presume everyone looking at this data is actually qualified to examine it, compare it to "normal" readings (whatever they are and wherever they're kept) and reach scientifically sound conclusions?

No, thought not.

Doesn't help of course that the waters have been so muddied by Lance's well-publicised claims of "passing every test" and the internet theories, myths, half-truths and rumours around things like VO2 and what's normal/abnormal.

Yeah, got to feel sorry for those sad people who can't dream big, who won't believe in miracles!

Why the f*ck do any of the naysayers bother watching the sport if you're so convinced they're all cheats??? Living with such high levels of cynicism must be exhausting...

All Froome can do is prove that he's clean within the existing testing regime. It's sad that sport has come to this, but no one can prove that they're clean beyond all doubt. Whether you believe Froome is totally clean or not, he still won the TdF on a level playing field with the rest of the competitors.

Lab tests are what critics like Antoine Vayer have been asking for. Although some experts here don't think they will prove anything, presumably Vayer does.

Sky are not going to publish 'all his data' since 2011. They're in a competitive sport, and they're not going to tell the opposition everything. It would also be a vast bulk of information, without context, which would inevitably be misinterpreted by people determined to see doping in it. Best to keep it manageably simple.

At least GSK (as manufacturer) know what they are looking for.
http://road.cc/content/news/81473-epo-competitor-pill-uks-biggest-drugs-...

Perhaps we can get them to sponsor the Tour of Britain too.

This is a PR exercise, and there won't be much of actual use from this.

If he were interested in actual transparency he'd release his historical data (despite the impression he's given recently, he has stated in the past that he has done physiological testing before - not least with the UCI when he was on their young rider programme; strange he's forgotten this), and he'd release not just lab data where:

1. He doesn't have to go all out if he doesn't want to

2. Even if he wanted to go all out, lab environment doesn't mentally replicate the motivating conditions of a race that matters.

but he'd release meaningful race data.

Additionally, he'd release his blood work.

As for those who claim race performance data and blood work is too precious to give to competitors:

a) If this was true, then they wouldn't be broadcasting this data in the clear (ANT+) or easily MITMed (BLE) to anyone within 10-20 metres to pick up with a small, simple device or 50-100 metres with a high-gain antenna.

b) Several racers already publish full race data anyway.

c) A number of racers have published longitudinal blood data.

E.g. Laurens ten Dam does b regularly, and has done c.

It's sad for the athletes, but given the history they have no credibility anymore. The old way of:

"We're innocent until someone proves us guilty to beyond reasonable doubt - until then its cause of our pillows, training in Tenerife and being careful to avoid nutella, trust us!"

no longer works.

If athletes want credibility they're going to have to go out of their way to prove their performance is credible. This means being *very* open about how they achieved their performance, how their body has behaved over time, and in races. Without that I and many others will assume there is a high probability of some level of banned or questionable ergogenic aids by elite athletes.

Given the history, you'd have to be naïve to "trust" elite athletes to be clean now.

Dose he not see the irony of trying to show is is not a doper by going to the human performance laboratory of a pharmaceutical company.

Whilst it's nice that Froome is doing this and being open about the results, wouldn't it provide a better picture if he/Sky published his data from around 2011 onwards? Surely that would show a gradual progression of form/power/etc as opposed to a few hours locked in a room flogging yourself to death on a static bike of sorts?

I just cannot get my head around how this helps.
We know EPO taken at night in micro doses is not visible in testing.
We know that the passport system is poor (see recent panorama evidence).
We know blood transfusions are a problem.
We know cyclists are still taking testosterone.
We know some riders cannot produce numbers in the lab so dont do testing.
What does this actually show? How can we be sure these performances are not enhanced when the testing seems so easy to beat.
The only way you could know somebody is clean is by having a camera on them every minute of every day during a 3 week stage race. Never going to happen.

Quote:

I'm not sure that you can really compare the efforts he makes in a lab in London with the efforts made on a hill in France in blazing sunshine, with wind, with other riders to chase, with the pressure of needing to perform for the team, etc.

It depends on what they are testing.
If its just what his max power is, I'm not sure that will tell us much. However one of the things to come out during the TDF was that Froome seems to have a very low 'max heart rate' (170 I believe) - so it will be interesting to see what that is about, and how that effects his potential for power and/or endurance.

Odd move for a supposed cheat, eh?

Whatever comes out of the tests will be fascinating.

I'm not sure that you can really compare the efforts he makes in a lab in London with the efforts made on a hill in France in blazing sunshine, with wind, with other riders to chase, with the pressure of needing to perform for the team, etc. Also it's nearly a month since the Tour, he's been cruising around doing criteriums and is not in peak form (I know he's going to the Vuelta).

Most crucially what I would like them to do is run identical tests at the same time on e.g. Nibali, Contador, Quintana, Porte, Thomas, Pinot, etc, and see how the physiology differs (or doesn't) between those athletes.

Quote:

It's very difficult - you're basically asking how do you prove a negative.

My question was not aimed at you so much - it was really for those who are calling a rider a cheat without evidence.

Nobody questions the TdF runner up even though he only 'lost' the tour due to poor weather and team not protecting him from it, it's all about Froome/Sky/any british rider in France! Which stage was it when Quintana blasted up the lumpy bit and gained a whole load of time? No shouts of doping there was there! Not a Sky fan, but, think they get persicuted when they have a good bunch of very good riders. Oh and didn't Moviestar come 2nd and 3rd, isn't that cause for 'doping' accusations? Wonder if Pinot would get piss chucked at him if was leading the TdF?