Agreement to not test LA on Ironman?

[Race Radio]

Is it possible that WTC didn't anticipate Armstrong placing in the top 3, so aimed lower in hopes of testing him and coming up with nothing, thus dispelling criticism re. his entry into triathlon? Then he proceeds to finish higher, thwarting their plans, but they can't come out and admit that they were attempting to target a specific athlete because that's not how such testing is normally performed.

Crazy idea, I know...which is why it belongs in this sub-forum!

Comedy gold Andy!

 

[Velodude]

Is it possible that WTC didn't anticipate Armstrong placing in the top 3, so aimed lower in hopes of testing him and coming up with nothing, thus dispelling criticism re. his entry into triathlon? Then he proceeds to finish higher, thwarting their plans, but they can't come out and admit that they were attempting to target a specific athlete because that's not how such testing is normally performed.

Crazy idea, I know...which is why it belongs in this sub-forum!

You always proffer an excuse for Armstrong.

And were not you the physiologist who opposed the conspiracy of peer physiologists against the flawed paper suddenly produced by Dr. Ed Coyle (University of Texas - Austin Tx) in 2005, Armstrong's annus horribilis, that Lance Armstrong's improvement 1993-1999 was related to efficiency (tacitly not drugs)

http://www.pezcyclingnews.com/?pg=fullstory&id=5658.

Here, Coyle showed that Lance didn’t only improve his power to weight ratio, but at the same time improved his efficiency (the amount of oxygen required to perform a set workload) by an astounding 8% over this period.

 

[acoggan]

Comedy gold Andy!

It does seem far-fetched, doesn't it? Still, if you're into conspiracy theories and all, it seems as plausible as a 2nd shooter in Dallas, or a sound stage in Hollywood.

 

[acoggan]

You always proffer an excuse for Armstrong.

Huh? In what way is that scenario any sort of excuse for Armstrong??

And were not you the physiologist who opposed the conspiracy of peer physiologists against the flawed paper suddenly produced by Dr. Ed Coyle (University of Texas - Austin Tx) in 2005, Armstrong's annus horribilis, that Lance Armstrong's improvement 1993-1999 was related to efficiency (tacitly not drugs)

Again, you seem to be confused: my position on Coyle's paper is, was, and always will be (unless something new comes to light) that while it was clearly weak, and perhaps shouldn't have been published in JAP in the first place, no one has ever proved sufficient problems with the data and/or how it was collected to legitimately justify the paper's retraction. IOW, taking the raw data at face value (as scientists really must, given the way the peer-review process works) the only conclusion one can reach is that Armstrong's efficiency did, indeed, improve. Of course, this says nothing about whether or not he ever used drugs...but only the conspiracy nuts believe that the paper had anything to do with that issue in the first place.

 

[Race Radio]

Huh? In what way is that scenario any sort of excuse for Armstrong??



Again, you seem to be confused: my position on Coyle's paper is, was, and always will be (unless something new comes to light) that while it was clearly weak, and perhaps shouldn't have been published in JAP in the first place, no one has ever proved sufficient problems with the data and/or how it was collected to legitimately justify the paper's retraction. IOW, taking the raw data at face value (as scientists really must, given the way the peer-review process works) the only conclusion one can reach is that Armstrong's efficiency did, indeed, improve. Of course, this says nothing about whether or not he ever used drugs...but only the conspiracy nuts believe that the paper had anything to do with that issue in the first place.

What did your buddy Coyle say when he found out Lance was working with Ferrari?

It does not take a "conspiracy nut" to see that paper was used often to prop up the myth. Lance was not on drugs, he was special....see, it says right here in this special paper written by this smart doctor fellow.

Are the multiple academics that questioned Coyle garbage conspiracy nuts or just haters? I am having trouble keep track.

 

[BotanyBay]

Is it possible that WTC didn't anticipate Armstrong placing in the top 3, so aimed lower in hopes of testing him and coming up with nothing, thus dispelling criticism re. his entry into triathlon? Then he proceeds to finish higher, thwarting their plans, but they can't come out and admit that they were attempting to target a specific athlete because that's not how such testing is normally performed.

Crazy idea, I know...which is why it belongs in this sub-forum!

I'm sure Armstrong's re-entry into Triathlon was well-negotiated in advance. You know, they needed a new mass-spectrometer, and Lance just happened to have one in his garage.

 

[acoggan]

What did your buddy Coyle say when he found out Lance was working with Ferrari?

I don't know if Ed even follows the sport closely enough to know who Ferrari is. I can tell you, though, that he (Ed) scoffed (rightly, as it turns out) at the notion that sleeping in an altitude tent will significantly increase one's hematocrit (this was during a discussion of Armstrong and whether or not he doped, right after Ed presented his data in poster format).

It does not take a "conspiracy nut" to see that paper was used often to prop up the myth. Lance was not on drugs, he was special....see, it says right here in this special paper written by this smart doctor fellow.

Oh, there's absolute no denying that is true - however, it is incorrect to believe that that is why Ed wrote the paper (131313 has a much better understanding of the situation).

Are the multiple academics that questioned Coyle garbage conspiracy nuts or just haters? I am having trouble keep track.

Well, I think that Ashenden could be considered a "hater", since he openly stated that he questioned Coyle's paper simply as a way of getting at Armstrong (i.e., he wasn't motivated by any scientific concerns).

As for the others (Gore, Martin, etc.), I would label them as "neither"...that is, they appear to have been motivated simply by their belief that the paper was of inadequate quality/incorrect in its conclusions, and thus should be retracted (unpublished). I happen to disagree with their retrospective assessment (although I might - or might not - have agreed with their position prospectively), but they are entitled to their opinion. (Of course, if they'd advanced a stronger argument than essentially just "we don't believe the results" and "you cited the wrong paper in your methods section" while ignoring the primary data itself, they probably would have gained more traction with the editors at JAP.)

BTW, has anyone ever asked Ashenden about all the recent studies of dietary nitrate ingestion showing that his "holy grail of exercise physiology" (i.e., exercise efficiency) is not only mutable, but can change in a matter of just hours?

 

[acoggan]

I'm sure Armstrong's re-entry into Triathlon was well-negotiated in advance. You know, they needed a new mass-spectrometer, and Lance just happened to have one in his garage.

As a conspiracy theory, I'd say that is as good as mine. Maybe better, actually, because it presupposes that Armstrong was extremely confident that he could finish in the top 3, and thus avoid being tested. Can you imagine being the one to try to broach this subject across a conference table, though?

 

[Velodude]

Huh? In what way is that scenario any sort of excuse for Armstrong??



Again, you seem to be confused: my position on Coyle's paper is, was, and always will be (unless something new comes to light) that while it was clearly weak, and perhaps shouldn't have been published in JAP in the first place, no one has ever proved sufficient problems with the data and/or how it was collected to legitimately justify the paper's retraction. IOW, taking the raw data at face value (as scientists really must, given the way the peer-review process works) the only conclusion one can reach is that Armstrong's efficiency did, indeed, improve. Of course, this says nothing about whether or not he ever used drugs...but only the conspiracy nuts believe that the paper had anything to do with that issue in the first place.

Did not Coyle in response to peer questioning assert that the same ergometer was used, a scientific requirement, throughout the 6 years of scientific testing to measure Armstrong's power output?

And Armstrong used Coyle's paper at the SCA depostion hearing with Coyle as a witness (to prove drugs were not the reason for his development)?

But Coyle was caught out by a photograph.

As per interview with Michael Ashenden:

Then interestingly, the paper itself became involved in an arbitration hearing where I was asked to serve as an expert witness and interpret this paper for the hearing. In that process I did some background checking to verify to myself what was happening and could this data be relied on. And I was very surprised when we were given a photograph showing Lance Armstrong in the first test session on an ergometer that was definitely not the ergometer that Coyle claims he tested him on.

It was a very disturbing revelation and it was purely a fluke occurrence, where the journalist had been in the laboratory, was taking photos for this journal article, and happened to take a photo while Armstrong was being tested. So we had that reservation and several others that we still felt uneasy about, and we elected to take those directly to Ed Coyle confidentially. We spelled out our concerns, and we said, "Professor Coyle, with the greatest respect, we really don't believe this paper is worthy of publication, would you please retract it?"

 

[Race Radio]

I don't know if Ed even follows the sport closely enough to know who Ferrari is. I can tell you, though, that he (Ed) scoffed (rightly, as it turns out) at the notion that sleeping in an altitude tent will significantly increase one's hematocrit (this was during a discussion of Armstrong and whether or not he doped, right after Ed presented his data in poster format).



Oh, there's absolute no denying that is true - however, it is incorrect to believe that that is why Ed wrote the paper (131313 has a much better understanding of the situation).



Well, I think that Ashenden could be considered a "hater", since he openly stated that he questioned Coyle's paper simply as a way of getting at Armstrong (i.e., he wasn't motivated by any scientific concerns).

As for the others (Gore, Martin, etc.), I would label them as "neither"...that is, they appear to have been motivated simply by their belief that the paper was of inadequate quality/incorrect in its conclusions, and thus should be retracted (unpublished). I happen to disagree with their retrospective assessment (although I might - or might not - have agreed with their position prospectively), but they are entitled to their opinion. (Of course, if they'd advanced a stronger argument than essentially just "we don't believe the results" and "you cited the wrong paper in your methods section" while ignoring the primary data itself, they probably would have gained more traction with the editors at JAP.)

BTW, has anyone ever asked Ashenden about all the recent studies of dietary nitrate ingestion showing that his "holy grail of exercise physiology" (i.e., exercise efficiency) is not only mutable, but can change in a matter of just hours?

Coyle's response when he heard about Lance working with Ferrari?

"That makes me feel sick. I feel like throwing up"

 

[acoggan]

Are the multiple academics that questioned Coyle garbage conspiracy nuts or just haters?

BTW, I hope you (and they) realize that Coyle's study is very much the reason why studies like this:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21796054

have since been performed? Note that the study was not only accepted for publication, but was accompanied by an editorial:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22251923

even though it really doesn't contain much in the way of new information...

 

[BotanyBay]

As a conspiracy theory, I'd say that is as good as mine. Maybe better, actually, because it presupposes that Armstrong was extremely confident that he could finish in the top 3, and thus avoid being tested. Can you imagine being the one to try to broach this subject across a conference table, though?

I'd be willing to bet that WTC came to Lance. No conference table needed. They just call Bill, settle a few details and the deal is done.

 

[acoggan]

Did not Coyle in response to peer questioning assert that the same ergometer was used, a scientific requirement, throughout the 6 years of scientific testing to measure Armstrong's power output?

Yes, he stated so in his letter to the editor.

And Armstrong used Coyle's paper at the SCA depostion hearing with Coyle as a witness (to prove drugs were not the reason for his development)?

Yes, Armstrong (or really, his attorney's) did, and Coyle certainly provided testimony that would back that conclusion up. Where the conspiracy train runs off the rails, though, is when people claim that is why Coyle wrote the paper - in fact, he presented the data at a small scientific meeting even before the SCA suit was filed.

But Coyle was caught out by a photograph.

As per interview with Michael Ashenden:

If such a photograph exists, why didn't Ashenden et al. present it to the editors of JAP and/or to the administration at UT-Austin? I am assuming that they did not, because if such a photograph exists (no reason to believe that it does not, although it is somewhat curious that it has never surfaced anywhere/anytime this issue has been discussed) and it could be demonstrated that Coyle used the data from that test in the paper, then Coyle would indeed have been "caught out".

 

[acoggan]

Coyle's response when he heard about Lance working with Ferrari?

"That makes me feel sick. I feel like throwing up"

Now that is comedy gold!

 

[acoggan]

As per interview with Michael Ashenden:

Quote:

It was a very disturbing revelation and it was purely a fluke occurrence, where the journalist had been in the laboratory, was taking photos for this journal article, and happened to take a photo while Armstrong was being tested. So we had that reservation and several others that we still felt uneasy about, and we elected to take those directly to Ed Coyle confidentially. We spelled out our concerns, and we said, "Professor Coyle, with the greatest respect, we really don't believe this paper is worthy of publication, would you please retract it?"

Actually, that is a very interesting spin on things: anyone who has knocked around the scientific world at all knows that it would be up to the journal editors to make any decisions re. a retraction, not the original authors (or in this case, author). IOW, only someone really inexperienced would approach another scientist and ask them (no matter how nicely) to retract a paper (and only someone really naive would ask Ed Coyle that! ). I'm therefore guessing things didn't go down quite as portrayed in that interview...that is, either Ashenden et al. approached the journal first (or everything was run through the journal), or they first approached Coyle much more mildly, and things only went downhill after that, or something.

 

[biokemguy]

Really?

IOW, only someone really inexperienced would approach another scientist and ask them (no matter how nicely) to retract a paper (and only someone really naive would ask Ed Coyle that! ).

That's not how I've seen it work, but maybe your field is different than mine.

Journal editors don't have time to keep track of material that has already passed through the peer review process to see if it should be retracted.

That's up to the authors and their colleagues in the same field.

 

[Velodude]

Actually, that is a very interesting spin on things: anyone who has knocked around the scientific world at all knows that it would be up to the journal editors to make any decisions re. a retraction, not the original authors (or in this case, author). IOW, only someone really inexperienced would approach another scientist and ask them (no matter how nicely) to retract a paper (and only someone really naive would ask Ed Coyle that! ). I'm therefore guessing things didn't go down quite as portrayed in that interview...that is, either Ashenden et al. approached the journal first (or everything was run through the journal), or they first approached Coyle much more mildly, and things only went downhill after that, or something.

Speculations. I do not believe the public was privy to the complaint by peer scientists to the University for scientific misconduct by Dr. Edward Coyle.

We do know the complaint was dismissed.

However, we do know the background:

1. There was no intention to undertake a study on Armstrong 1992-1999. Armstrong was opportunistic in turning up at the lab for testing unrelated to any study. Hence the inconsistency of tests, data and times within a cycling season.

2. 5 years after these testing results lay undisturbed in a filing cabinet, Armstrong had public image problems relating to doping commencing with the publication of LA Confidentiel - Les secrets de Lance Armstrong by Walsh and Ballester in 2004.

3. In February 2005 Dr Edward Coyle cobbled together the loose data 1992-1999 into a "scientific" study to justify Armstrong's performance development. The study was approved by the university in a lightning 3 weeks without being presented for peer and editorial review!

4. The study was controversial and came in for widespread scientific criticism.

5. Coyle admitted to a calculation error but continued to personally promote the study through the media.

6. Armstrong used Coyle as a paid witness at the SCA deposition hearing in November 2005 to use the study as justification against his doping.

 

[Race Radio]

Now that is comedy gold!

Page 153, LA Confidential

http://www.scribd.com/doc/24717760/L-A-Confidentiel-Part-IV-English-Translation?olddoc=1

Yeah, we know. Blah, blah Hater, blah, blah, French Conspiracy

 

[Polish]

Page 153, LA Confidential

http://www.scribd.com/doc/24717760/L-A-Confidentiel-Part-IV-English-Translation?olddoc=1

Yeah, we know. Blah, blah Hater, blah, blah, French Conspiracy

Yes, its obvious Greg's a hater blah blah. And Greg himself was very concerned about French Conspiracies back in his days with The Badger.

But even more than that, Greg comes across as being nosy and prying in that snippet you quoted from that book. Nosy, prying, and maybe a little bit jealous? Just saying.

 

[cathulu]

I love it when Coggan shows up LOL

 

[acoggan]

That's not how I've seen it work, but maybe your field is different than mine.

Journal editors don't have time to keep track of material that has already passed through the peer review process to see if it should be retracted.

That's up to the authors and their colleagues in the same field.

From the Council of Scientific Editors' White Paper on Promoting Integrity in Scientific Journal Publications:

"Concerns of possible scientific misconduct are usually expressed first to the editors of a journal about a manuscript that is under consideration or has already been published."

http://www.councilscienceeditors.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=3354#2.1.10

 

[Race Radio]

From the Council of Scientific Editors' White Paper on Promoting Integrity in Scientific Journal Publications:

"Concerns of possible scientific misconduct are usually expressed first to the editors of a journal about a manuscript that is under consideration or has already been published."

http://www.councilscienceeditors.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=3354#2.1.10

Step 1 Attack the messenger
Step 2 Try to find a procedural error
Step 3 Blame the French

 

[acoggan]

Page 153, LA Confidential

http://www.scribd.com/doc/24717760/L-A-Confidentiel-Part-IV-English-Translation?olddoc=1

Yeah, we know. Blah, blah Hater, blah, blah, French Conspiracy

Shoot, I'd forgotten about that reported conversation - I thought you were referring to Santorum's recent comments re. Kennedy's speech!!

In any case, though, that's another case where things don't ring true to my ears...first off, why would Kathy Lemond refer to Ed, a PhD, as "Armstrong's doctor"? Unlike in some other countries, it is rare for U.S. exercise physiologists employed by universities to work all that closely with individual athletes or teams. Heck, I'm much more plugged into that scene than Ed ever is/was, and my role is limited to consulting via email with certain cyclists/triathletes and/or their coaches about technical matters (such as aerodynamics or power output...sorry, BotanyBay!). No one would ever mistake me for a "prepatore" (sp?), though, so I can't imagine why anyone would ever view Ed as one. Second, I just can't picture Ed expressing physical revulsion at the notion of Armstrong working with Ferrari...Ed isn't a cyclist but a scientist, and so would be far more likely to view Armstrong as simply an interesting physical specimen than someone to be put up on a pedestal (such that he would be shocked by his "hero's" unethical actions). Moreover, Ed did not attempt to distance himself from "the other Ed", i.e., the late Ed Burke, when the media were all over the blood-doping story following the L.A. Olympics. While you could argue that means he is at least a closet doping sympathizer, I think the real truth is that he just doesn't view these controversies as having much to do with him.

 

[acoggan]

Step 1 Attack the messenger
Step 2 Try to find a procedural error
Step 3 Blame the French

Huh? I'm talking about the accepted methods for reporting suspected problems with scientific papers - what are you talking about?

 

[AngusW]

Page 153, LA Confidential

http://www.scribd.com/doc/24717760/L-A-Confidentiel-Part-IV-English-Translation?olddoc=1

Yeah, we know. Blah, blah Hater, blah, blah, French Conspiracy

The timings seem a bit strange. LA Confidential was published in 2004. Ed Coyle testifies for LA in November 2005. When exactly did he have the conversation with Greg Lemond in which Lemond enlightened Coyle about Michele Ferrari? If it was prior to the SCA hearing, why did Coyle testify for LA, being sickened as he was by the news that LA was with Ferrari?