Andy Coggan discussion thread

[sittingbison]

This thread is the entirety of the off topic convo between acoggan and various others from the Froome Talk ONLY thread. Note the title of said thread.

This kind of sidetracking will NOT be tolerated again, bans will ensue. This goes for acoggan posting in this manner, and the various taunts, baits and abuse that ensures.

You have all been warned.

 

[acoggan]

Coggan's ego makes him think he's qualified to say anything he wants...

The irony of your comment being, of course, is that I only offer my opinion about topics on which I'm clearly qualified to do so (e.g., exercise physiology, cycling power output), and refrain from say anything regarding topics where I lack any special insight (e.g., who is/isn't doping). I'd say that makes me the polar opposite of 99.9% of those who post here.

 

[acoggan]

Solid response right there.

Anybody wants to see the quality of Andrew Coggan can have a looksy at Slowtwitch circa 2006.

http://forum.slowtwitch.com/gforum.cgi?do=post_view_printable;post=877642;


Still wondering about that "evidence" Coggan?

Oh, yes, my position (see below) is clearly horrible.

"I find it offensive when individuals who have no first hand knowledge of the facts allege use of performance enhancing drugs by specific athletes. However, I also find censorship offensive, and even more so."

IOW, keep digging, dumb****.

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

Oh, yes, my position (see below) is clearly horrible.

"I find it offensive when individuals who have no first hand knowledge of the facts allege use of performance enhancing drugs by specific athletes. However, I also find censorship offensive, and even more so."

IOW, keep digging, dumb****.

Congratulations on being the only person who couldn't figure out that Basso was doping in 2006.

Golf clap for Coggan.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Congratulations on being the only person who couldn't figure out that Basso was doping in 2006.

Golf clap for Coggan.

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

"Expert" Coggan also couldn't figure out Contador in 2009. Another who was banned.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/contadors-climbing-credibility-questioned

Doesn't bode well for Froome, since Coggan can't figure him out either, and Hunter Allen swears he's clean.

 

[acoggan]

We really need a wiki/database with all of SKYs legends, timelines, contradictions and spins. Even if there is no smoking gun, everybody but pigheads like Coggan or Allen would be able to understand and draw their own conclusions.

Pighead yourself: point to where I've stated my opinion re. whether or not Froome/Sky or anyone else in the peleton is doping.

 

[acoggan]

Congratulations on being the only person who couldn't figure out that Basso was doping in 2006.

Golf clap for Coggan.

More revisionist history/distortions/lies: Show me where I drew any conclusions re. Basso (or any other specific rider, for that matter).

 

[acoggan]

"Expert" Coggan also couldn't figure out Contador in 2009. Another who was banned.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/contadors-climbing-credibility-questioned

Doesn't bode well for Froome, since Coggan can't figure him out either, and Hunter Allen swears he's clean.

And again you don't get: nowhere in that article do I draw any conclusions re. whether or not Contador was guilty of doping. I simply pointed out that you can't definitively draw that conclusion based on power output, especially when it is estimated.

EDIT: The exact words I typed:

""The problem is that there is enough 'slop' in the calculations that I don't think you can really say one way or another what is or isn't possible without use of drugs."

"What seems different is not one rider, but the climb itself ... In addition to uncertainties regarding the exact length and gradient of the climb and whether or not there might have been any wind, I think he has significantly overestimated Contador's power."

"Taking everything into consideration, I'd say that a more reasonable estimate of Contador's power during that ascent is about 450 W, which would require a sustained VO2 of 'only' 80 mL/kg/min. That is still quite high, but not so high that you can definitively state that it can only be achieved via doping."

 

[acoggan]

Just keep saying nobody is doping and acting surprised when some are caught, that is the company line. UCI, USAC, pro teams, doctors, licensed coaches, funny they almost all seem to have the exact same approach to it all. Don't want to cut into profits any, huh?

1. Show me where I have ever said that somebody wasn't (or was) doping, or acted surprised when they were caught.

2. You seem to be laboring under a misconception as to how I make my living, as I don't fall into any of the categories you list above, and my income would be completely unaffected regardless of who might get caught. Heck, all of pro cycling could vanish tomorrow, and it would not impact me one bit.

 

[thehog]

2. You seem to be laboring under a misconception as to how I make my living, as I don't fall into any of the categories you list above, and my income would be completely unaffected regardless of who might get caught.

Unlike your reputation.

 

[acoggan]

Unlike your reputation.

I've been posting online under my own name since the Usenet days...do you really think I'm concerned about my "reputation"?

EDIT: Besides, how would any particular individual, individuals, and/or teams getting caught reflect on me? I'm not associated with any of them, nor have I ever specifically defended anyone.

Bottom line: the only way my reputation would be impacted by a doping conviction is if I were the one who was caught.

 

[thehog]

I've been posting online under my own name since the Usenet days...do you really think I'm concerned about my "reputation"?

EDIT: Besides, how would any particular individual, individuals, and/or teams getting caught reflect on me? I'm not associated with any of them, nor have I ever specifically defended anyone.

Bottom line: the only way my reputation would be impacted by a doping conviction is if I were the one who was caught.

You cannot be the judge of your own reputation. Thats is for others to decide.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

I've been posting online under my own name since the Usenet days...do you really think I'm concerned about my "reputation"?

EDIT: Besides, how would any particular individual, individuals, and/or teams getting caught reflect on me? I'm not associated with any of them, nor have I ever specifically defended anyone.

Bottom line: the only way my reputation would be impacted by a doping conviction is if I were the one who was caught.

What you are actually saying is because science just doesnt know what is humanly possible you just dont know if somenone is doping, and thus everyone is innocent untill proven guilty?

 

[acoggan]

What you are actually saying is because science just doesnt know what is humanly possible you just dont know if somenone is doping, and thus everyone is innocent untill proven guilty?

I would add:

1) "simply based on the power output" after "doping"; and

2) emphasize the additional uncertainty that results from estimating power

but, yes, you've got it.

 

[acoggan]

You cannot be the judge of your own reputation. Thats is for others to decide.

Yes, there are always those who will judge you incorrectly, no matter what you say or do.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

What you are actually saying is because science just doesnt know what is humanly possible you just dont know if somenone is doping, and thus everyone is innocent untill proven guilty?

I would add:

1) "simply based on the power output" after "doping"; and

2) emphasize the additional uncertainty that results from estimating power

but, yes, you've got it.

So, as has been pointed out, you have made this same argument for years. YEARS. You said it yourself, you've been here since Usenet making this same argument. You've tested this theory that it is impossible to extrapolate any significant or relevant hypothesis about a rider doping from estimated power data. It can always be explained by something else is your theory.

Two of those discussions from years past have been linked to here. In both of those, you are making the same claim, that being that with the information available, the people who are saying rider X doped are wrong for doing so because the available information does not allow that conclusion because the people making the claim of doping are not accounting for too many variables.

(you should be able to hypothesize where I'm going here)

Turns out that in both of the instances linked to....wait for it....the rider in question was DOPING. So your absolute rule that doping cannot be suggested from the information referred to in both discussions has been tested...and it failed. Verifiable fact.

There appear to be several other instances of this exact experiment being undertaken, and evidently, you haven't been too successful in promoting the "you guys can't predict doping from the available information" theory...because it keeps being proven wrong because these cyclists you are tacitly defending (like it or not, continuing to post defensive posts in threads about riders others are suggesting are doping means you are defending those riders. Hint: its the context; the words you post are irrelevant) keep getting busted for doping.

So you'll have to excuse us if we don't find your argument on this thread compelling (same old argument you've made numerous times), that being the current data being used to estimate Froome's power numbers is not sufficient to predict anything, much less doping. You've been wrong too many times in the past making the same argument.

EDIT: In fact, I'd go so far as to say that if I were looking for someone who was doping, I'd find a thread where you (Coggan) were making your "you can't say rider X is doping because I'm smarter than you" diatribe, and I'd say that the rider in question is much more likely than not to be doping. Like I said before, you're a weathervane that is thicker on the pointy end.

 

[Spencer the Half Wit]

No, that's not what he's saying. He clearly signed onto what he is saying if you read the two posts I quoted in my response. He goes much further. And he has been wrong in making that argument several times.

When I test my theory "When Coggan shows up on a thread and chides everyone (in his typically narcissistic manner) for suggesting a rider is doping because they are using estimates of power data to suggest that doping, the rider in question is likely doping," I find a lot of support for my theory.

If you take the two quotes together, and I'm paraphrasing it reads

"With the uncertainty in estimating power, science just doesn't know what is humanly possible and therefore you just don't know if someone is doping simply based on power output and thus everyone is innocent until proven guilty"

To me, with a scientific and legal background this has got to be true. What is more fun though is reading some of the theories you get in here.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

If you take the two quotes together, and I'm paraphrasing it reads

"With the uncertainty in estimating power, science just doesn't know what is humanly possible and therefore you just don't know if someone is doping simply based on power output and thus everyone is innocent until proven guilty"

To me, with a scientific and legal background this has got to be true. What is more fun though is reading some of the theories you get in here.

Hence the issue I have with Coggan. This isn't a lab, nor is it a courtroom. This is an intertube forum, and Coggan loves to come into a thread and egotistically throw around who he is, and why everyone else posting is stupid for suggesting anything other than what he says is the gospel. But as I stated, this isn't his lab. This isn't the WADA. This isn't CAS, and it certainly isn't a court of law. This is a place to discuss opinions about cycling, and one of the topics that is relevant is doping. History suggests that the accusations about whether specific riders are doping, made on forums like these, are fairly accurate in determining which riders are doping, and using estimated power data is one of the tools used to determine such.

 

[darwin553]

Hence the issue I have with Coggan. This isn't a lab, nor is it a courtroom. This is an intertube forum, and Coggan loves to come into a thread and egotistically throw around who he is, and why everyone else posting is stupid for suggesting anything other than what he says is the gospel. But as I stated, this isn't his lab. This isn't the WADA. This isn't CAS, and it certainly isn't a court of law. This is a place to discuss opinions about cycling, and one of the topics that is relevant is doping. History suggests that the accusations about whether specific riders are doping, made on forums like these, are fairly accurate in determining which riders are doping, and using estimated power data is one of the tools used to determine such.

Fair enough but what we've got here is not enough to hang him on...yet

 

[Spencer the Half Wit]

Hence the issue I have with Coggan. This isn't a lab, nor is it a courtroom. This is an intertube forum, and Coggan loves to come into a thread and egotistically throw around who he is, and why everyone else posting is stupid for suggesting anything other than what he says is the gospel. But as I stated, this isn't his lab. This isn't the WADA. This isn't CAS, and it certainly isn't a court of law. This is a place to discuss opinions about cycling, and one of the topics that is relevant is doping. History suggests that the accusations about whether specific riders are doping, made on forums like these, are fairly accurate in determining which riders are doping, and using estimated power data is one of the tools used to determine such.

Thing is though, if you say everybody is a doper apart from St. Greg, Bassons and Moncoute you are bound to be right when somebody gets popped. If they're not popped, like say Sastre, you can always claim they were doping but were lucky enough not to get caught. Win-win. It reminds me of the British sports press in the summer that print a load of transfer stories and trumpet the fact when they get one right, conveniently forgetting all the others. We all have suspicions, but saying x,y or z is doping because he climed at whatever w/kg, for me, is not good enough.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Thing is though, if you say everybody is a doper apart from St. Greg, Bassons and Moncoute you are bound to be right when somebody gets popped. If they're not popped, like say Sastre, you can always claim they were doping but were lucky enough not to get caught. Win-win. It reminds me of the British sports press in the summer that print a load of transfer stories and trumpet the fact when they get one right, conveniently forgetting all the others. We all have suspicions, but saying x,y or z is doping because he climed at whatever w/kg, for me, is not good enough.

Riiggghhhht...so because doping was/is rampant, it is illogical to suggest riders are doping when their times and other data are similar to known dopers. Got it...

 

[acoggan]

So, as has been pointed out, you have made this same argument for years. YEARS. You said it yourself, you've been here since Usenet making this same argument. You've tested this theory that it is impossible to extrapolate any significant or relevant hypothesis about a rider doping from estimated power data. It can always be explained by something else is your theory.

No, it is not (i.e., your last sentence above is a non-sequitur).

Two of those discussions from years past have been linked to here. In both of those, you are making the same claim, that being that with the information available, the people who are saying rider X doped are wrong for doing so because the available information does not allow that conclusion because the people making the claim of doping are not accounting for too many variables.

No, I'm saying that their conclusion isn't supported by the evidence they're offering (i.e., estimated or even actual power output). That's not the same as saying that they're wrong.

(you should be able to hypothesize where I'm going here)

Turns out that in both of the instances linked to....wait for it....the rider in question was DOPING. So your absolute rule that doping cannot be suggested from the information referred to in both discussions has been tested...and it failed. Verifiable fact.

Your logic is faulty: just because A doesn't infer B doesn't mean that B isn't true, and B being true doesn't mean that the first statement (i.e., that A doesn't infer B) is incorrect.

There appear to be several other instances of this exact experiment being undertaken, and evidently, you haven't been too successful in promoting the "you guys can't predict doping from the available information" theory...because it keeps being proven wrong because these cyclists you are tacitly defending (like it or not, continuing to post defensive posts in threads about riders others are suggesting are doping means you are defending those riders. Hint: its the context; the words you post are irrelevant) keep getting busted for doping.

So you'll have to excuse us if we don't find your argument on this thread compelling (same old argument you've made numerous times), that being the current data being used to estimate Froome's power numbers is not sufficient to predict anything, much less doping. You've been wrong too many times in the past making the same argument.

See above.

EDIT: In fact, I'd go so far as to say that if I were looking for someone who was doping, I'd find a thread where you (Coggan) were making your "you can't say rider X is doping because I'm smarter than you" diatribe, and I'd say that the rider in question is much more likely than not to be doping.

By that logic everyone must be doping, because I don't think you can conclude that anyone is doping based on estimated or even actual power output.

 

[acoggan]

Thing is though, you have actual scientists in here on the intertubes flaming people for giving opinions regarding the data available. Not sure if you're familiar with the intertubes forum format, but it's generally regarded as a place to offer opinion and discuss things. Maybe Coggan needs to stay in the lab, because as has been pointed out, when he comes into a thread and starts insulting the common folk, the rider the common folk are discussing usually turns out to be a doper.

That's not a scientific assessment however, it's just based on common observation...

Also note that one of Coggan's heroes tried to "find out" about Armstrong...and he determined Armstrong had a heart the size of a baby's head, and pedaled more smoothly than anyone else in the history of the world...turns out, he missed that it was because LA was doping...

"Flaming people"? "heroes"? Where do you get this stuff??

 

[acoggan]

This is an intertube forum, and Coggan loves to come into a thread and egotistically throw around who he is

Yes, yes, using my own name and sharing whatever facts I can is "egotistically throwing around who I am".