So, the day's come where Chris Froome's much talked about physiological data is released. And the results are... underwhelming.
My concern all along is that Sky would just release a photo of a series of numbers and percentages that meant nothing to anyone without a degree in sports science. While those fears were allayed by the statistics being worked into a full, and well-written article (in Esquire, no less, cycling is mainstream now), the finding still need to be taken with a pinch of salt.
The main issue is context. A little is given by mentioning the first test Froome took back in 2007. But people change over eight years. It'd be more relevant with some data in between, especially given that the Biological Passport is mentioned in the article. Indeed, they effectively say the 2007 data is irrelevant, since it's from the pre-passport days.
What it does show, however, is that the three sets of readings (2007, one after his attack on La Pierre Saint-Martin in this year's Tour and one at GlaxoSmithKline's Human Performance Lab a month later) are more or less consistent. This won't silence anyone, however, as they'll contend that if he was doping during the Tour, he may have been doing so afterwards too, especially as he was gearing up for an assault on the Vuelta.
It must be said that people are right to still be wary of apparently superhuman achievements in cycling. The spectre of Lance Armstrong still looms large over the sport, and will for as long as the general public associates his name with the word 'cycling'. It should also be noted that Armstrong was never caught for doping during his career. As such, the fight against doping is always a step behind those who are willing to cheat.
For the record (and for those of you who haven't read the article itself), the blood data is as follows:
13 July 2015
Haemoglobin: 15.3grams per litre
Immature red blood cells: 0.72%
OFF score: 102.1
20 August 2015
Haemoglobin: 15.3g/l
Immature red blood cells: 0.96%
OFF score: 94.21
The first thing I'd like to do is nitpick. Those haemoglobin levels suggest a scale of grams per DECILITRE of blood, rather than litre, as stated by Esquire. So we can either assume that the writer made a fairly standard balls-up in giving the wrong ratio, or Chris Froome only has a tenth of the haemoglobin he should, and should be dead now.
Given that he's very much alive, let's move on to some context. The haemoglobin levels are consistent in the two 2015 data readings (his 2007 score was 14.5), and considering that levels can fluctuate depending on factors such as diet, these are all consistent with a healthy adult male. If anything, they're a little on the low side. A quick look on the NHS website says the average would be 14-18g/decilitre (dL), with anything under 13.5 being unsuitable for transfusion use.
The immature red blood cells are given some context in the article, with the normal range being 0.5-2.5%, and that his count is low effectively rules out the possibility of EPO use, which would spike the counts. This is one of the main things the biological passport looks out for. The OFF score, frankly confuses me. It probably confuses everyone who didn't do at least A-Level biology. If you do understand it, please leave a comment for the benefit of the rest of us. All I can figure out from the UKAD website is that the scores can spike much more dramatically in normal conditions that Froome's did.
At least those figures are, OFF aside, understandable. Power output is what I was worried the whole thing would get bogged down in, and wattage does rear its baffling head too. VO2 also makes an appearance, with Froome's reading of 84.6 in the lab being extrapolated to 88.2 during the Tour, which is basically in the 'upper limits, but not superhuman' bracket.
I won't bother you with power output scores, only to say that the scientists at GSK believe that Froome's output is - while obviously not normal, or we'd all be doing it - cleanly sustainable over about half an hour or so. This is the key one, as it effectively confirms that his prodigious ability to attack on brutal climbs is down to his own physiology, not something more sinister.
NDTV.com
To cut a long story short, the GlaxoSmithKline lab data does seem to give proof that Froome's ability is legitimate and clean. But it's still a bizarre decision to release this data in the first place. A handful aside, the entire peloton is clean now, or so we believe. But nobody else is releasing data. None of those whose bikes were taken apart in search of motors released technical drawings of their bikes, nor will they be doing so.
By going to such lengths to prove his innocence, even successfully, Froome may have made himself look more guilty. Ultimately it remains a tiny percentage of fans who don't believe him anyway. He could have just kept his head down, and kept doing what he does, content in himself that he's doing it honestly, and with most people similarly content.
It's also curious that Froome is the only one to receive this much scrutiny and abuse. You can't even directly blame Team Sky, as I don't recall Bradley Wiggins being targeted to nearly this extent. Have we forgotten that his rise was even more meteoric than Froome's? In his first four Grand Tours he never finished in the top 120, and failed to finish once because his Cofidis team withdrew due to doping allegations. The next year he finished 4th in the Tour, promoted to 3rd after Armstrong's eventual disqualification. He never felt the need to address any skeptics with data readings.
To cut a long story short, it was done with honourable intentions, for honourable reasons, but it is likely to only give the doubters more reason to suspect that Froome is hiding something, and his supporters more facts to point to to support his cleanliness. Is it too simple to simply believe that, by the tests and Froome's own admission, that he's this good now because he was too fat when he came over from Africa?
