Recent content by SavageKiwi

Thanks - I have made the appropriate changes.

That strategy is fine - as long as it does not end after LA and efforts are made to go after everyone that is suspicious. Ending things after LA will do nothing other than change the strategy used to win. I find the UCI current attitude poor given that they have so much data and its analysis...

I dont have the times for the Guerini climb - if someone has them I would appreciate having them. The fact that times from that year are not on the list indicates that they were not in this top 36.

Dear Wiggo : Why do you conclude that I am a fan-boy. You are free to disagree with my final conclusions - they are my opinion only and only mine. However - you cannot disagree with the data - they are facts. The trends are real and unambiguous. It is also unambiguous that LA was not the only...

Yes, he was stripped based upon statements made under oath, and, to be clear, I am not supporting what LA did. In my mind understanding and supporting are very different things. However, if similar investigations into other top cyclists after the late 1980's were launched, similar results...

The conclusions were reached after the data was looked at. In the beginning I thought I was going to see LA stand out as from everyone else, but he does not, my opinions were shaped by what the data showed and not the other way around. It is clear that to come back in 1999 and to win, being...

Sorry to be posting something that I posted previously, but on an LA thread. Here is a collection of performance data that I put together that shows "interesting" trends related to this discussion: http://www.phys.washington.edu/users/savage/Cycling/LookingAtTheData/AIC.html

OK. I do not understand your comment about the data not relating to NAPR. I think I must not be understanding what you are saying. The three points below ``Given these observations and conclusions........'' are my own thoughts based upon what I see - and are not contained in the data (as...

I'll look for Coyles research - didn't know about it. Thanks. Can you elaborate on your ``eye roll'' please - what aspect of this has been discredited and why. Thanks Martin

John, you might be interested in http://www.phys.washington.edu/users/savage/Cycling/LookingAtTheData/AIC.html

As far as my thoughts on the data goes, they evolved as i was looking at various performances, and eventually it became clear that in order to return to cycling around 1999, and to be able to win, there was no choice, as it appears that all outstanding winning performances were unnatural in that...

I am new to this forum, but have looked at relevant (public) data, and observe some interesting features about the environment around the time of Armstrong's return in 1999. You can find it at http://www.phys.washington.edu/users/savage/Cycling/LookingAtTheData/AIC.html if you are interested.