Andy Coggan discussion thread

[thehog]

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

You still going?

Leave us pseudo-scientists alone.

Go write a paper on Froome's big heart. Please?

We seek more comedy gold.

 

[acoggan]

You still going?

Of course.

Leave us pseudo-scientists alone.

Well if the shoe fits...

Go write a paper on Froome's big heart. Please?

We seek more comedy gold.

Nah, not my style to worship at the feet of successful athletes.

 

[thehog]

Of course.



Well if the shoe fits...



Nah, not my style to worship at the feet of successful athletes.

Yay!

Seriously. Keep it up.

How about a peer-reviewed paper on the size of Froome's left ventricle?

And how his Badzhilla ate all his red blood cells? and he needed to smoke cigars and force his body to reproduce red blood cells hence BS massive improvement overnight.

Go on. I dare you.

You'll get an Internet hero award

 

[acoggan]

but have you bought his power training plan ONLINE yet?

Allow me to try, once more, to educate you (and others): I am not a coach (or even an applied sports scientist).

 

[131313]

Allow me to try, once more, to educate you (and others): I am not a coach (or even an applied sports scientist).

Like it or not, this is the price you pay when you co-author a book with someone whose job it is to push power-based training plans. Maybe that's not fair, but that's how it goes. When your co-author makes unbelievably stupid comments (and you post those comments on the interwebs), some is gonna blow back on you.

 

[acoggan]

Like it or not, this is the price you pay when you co-author a book with someone whose job it is to push power-based training plans. Maybe that's not fair, but that's how it goes.

<shrug>

Just trying to avoid having even more people make incorrect assumptions.

When your co-author makes unbelievably stupid comments (and you post those comments on the interwebs)

While I disagree with Hunter's basic premise (i.e., that you can determine whether or not someone is doping by knowing their power output), I admire him for having the conviction to put his name to his name to his opinion (unlike so many here...including you, I might add) - that's why I shared them.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I think that there are lots of reasons to suspect any professional athlete in any sport of doping. The question is, what do you do with those suspicions?

Is the correct answer - write a book about power-based training plans?

 

[ScienceIsCool]

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

As someone who's interacted with you, maybe I could make a suggestion. Take the time to teach and educate.

Making assertions and putting up a few references (often inaccessible) doesn't accomplish that. It comes across as arrogant and dismissive. Something along the lines of walking into a room, knowing that you'll be the smartest person there - it's not the best way to convince people that you know what you're talking about. I can hear you say "not my problem". Well yeah, it kind of is. The onus is always on the speaker to ensure that he communicates effectively. Unless you really are a pompous blowhard...

Again, take the time to really lay out the scientific underpinnings of your arguments. Answer questions. Trust that we are intelligent enough to follow along - largely we are. If you're inclined, you have an audience that is eager to soak up knowledge regarding a subject that you have something to contribute.

John Swanson

 

[ChewbaccaD]

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

"Common sense is for the commoner"--acoggan quoting someone...

 

[ChewbaccaD]

As someone who's interacted with you, maybe I could make a suggestion. Take the time to teach and educate.

Making assertions and putting up a few references (often inaccessible) doesn't accomplish that. It comes across as arrogant and dismissive. Something along the lines of walking into a room, knowing that you'll be the smartest person there - it's not the best way to convince people that you know what you're talking about. I can hear you say "not my problem". Well yeah, it kind of is. The onus is always on the speaker to ensure that he communicates effectively. Unless you really are a pompous blowhard...

Again, take the time to really lay out the scientific underpinnings of your arguments. Answer questions. Trust that we are intelligent enough to follow along - largely we are. If you're inclined, you have an audience that is eager to soak up knowledge regarding a subject that you have something to contribute.

John Swanson

Seriously, if we don't get a "like" button or maybe a "thumbs up" or something, I'm going to go apesh!t.

Bravo good sir. Bravo.

 

[acoggan]

I'm not selling the idea that I'm a clean professional (because I know that's a waste of time), so I'll stay anonymous

Different strokes for different folks...but you do realize, don't you, that by anonymously contributing to fora such as this one that you reinforce the very culture that makes any such effort on your part a waste of time?

 

[acoggan]

As someone who's interacted with you, maybe I could make a suggestion. Take the time to teach and educate.

Making assertions and putting up a few references (often inaccessible) doesn't accomplish that. It comes across as arrogant and dismissive. Something along the lines of walking into a room, knowing that you'll be the smartest person there - it's not the best way to convince people that you know what you're talking about. I can hear you say "not my problem". Well yeah, it kind of is. The onus is always on the speaker to ensure that he communicates effectively. Unless you really are a pompous blowhard...

Again, take the time to really lay out the scientific underpinnings of your arguments. Answer questions. Trust that we are intelligent enough to follow along - largely we are. If you're inclined, you have an audience that is eager to soak up knowledge regarding a subject that you have something to contribute.

John Swanson

There is nothing to teach here, no studies to cite, etc.: either people can understand simple logic, or they can't.

 

[acoggan]

Is the correct answer - write a book about power-based training plans?

Nah, that just makes money for the publisher.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Different strokes for different folks...but you do realize, don't you, that by anonymously contributing to fora such as this one that you reinforce the very culture that makes any such effort on your part a waste of time?

Of course it doesn't.

The anonymity discussion is bogus - verifiable facts or even a well researched opinion will always trump a name or qualification.
I read what people write - if its correct its correct, false its false - it doesn't matter who writes it.

 

[acoggan]

Of course it doesn't.

The anonymity discussion is bogus - verifiable facts or even a well researched opinion will always trump a name or qualification.
I read what people write - if its correct its correct, false its false - it doesn't matter who writes it.

Except that 99.9% of the time, there are no "verifiable facts or well-researched opinions", only idle speculation, such that it is no wonder clean riders tend to get discouraged, or people like Hunter (or Wiggins last year) periodically go off on rants. 131313's anonymous contributions therefore only serve to reinforce the belief that his chosen profession makes him no more respectable to many people than, say, being a porn actor.

 

[acoggan]

"Common sense is for the commoner"--acoggan quoting someone...

I was paraphrasing Albert Einstein (“Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen").

 

[131313]

131313's anonymous contributions therefore only serve to reinforce the belief that his chosen profession makes him no more respectable to many people than, say, being a porn actor.

That may be the nicest thing that anyone has said to me in a while. Thank you!

In venues where I feel my contributions can actually affect positive change, such as talking with people from USADA or team directors, I'm not anonymous. On an online forum such as this I don't really see a benefit, and I see some significant drawbacks. We can agree to disagree, and that's OK. But the reality is that that I see some benefits to being able to speak freely without worrying about mysteriously losing my front wheel in a crit, and I don't see assigning one's name to one's posts as a guarantor of a good contribution; to wit: Hunter's post.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Except that 99.9% of the time, there are no "verifiable facts or well-researched opinions", only idle speculation, such that it is no wonder clean riders tend to get discouraged, or people like Hunter (or Wiggins last year) periodically go off on rants. 131313's anonymous contributions therefore only serve to reinforce the belief that his chosen profession makes him no more respectable to many people than, say, being a porn actor.

If thats true (I doubt it) - why would a rider get 'discouraged' if 99.9% of stuff is idle speculation. They should be able to shrug it off as exactly that?

131313, is not a scientist - and can only write what they know, they acknowledge that - however some of the scientists use their qualifications not their arguments to derail discussion.

(I had no problem with Wiggins comments, except it had little to do with the question asked)

 

[DirtyWorks]

Except that 99.9% of the time, there are no "verifiable facts or well-researched opinions", only idle speculation

#1. Again with the "proof" argument. You and others maneuver to become the source of proof as you, and only you get to declare what qualifies as proof.

#2. You then try to close discussion by declaring false choices. The newly blessed source of all proof, or disregarded as "idle speculation"

Collecting facts on doping is the equivalent attempting to collect facts on heroin use. Lots of lying. So, we're left using inference. You've heard of inference before?

 

[ScienceIsCool]

There is nothing to teach here, no studies to cite, etc.: either people can understand simple logic, or they can't.

Your response is... fascinating. So much to deconstruct from one short statement.

Simple logic: The sun puts out a lot of UV light. Exposure to UV light can cause a sunburn. Ergo, exposure to sunlight can cause a sunburn.

People can understand simple logic, or they can't. Suggesting that there are some (in this forum) who, after having heard the previous example, would go out for a walk and not know why they came home with a sunburn. This would indicate a very, very low level of intelligence.

People can understand simple logic, or they can't. This suggests that you put forth arguments using simple logic. Those who disagree with you are incapable of simple logic. Actual, clinically verifiable idiots.

One could also infer that since there was "nothing to teach, no studies to cite, etc" that your arguments were not just simple logic, but self evident. Otherwise you would have had to introduce supporting facts and argumentation.

In this view, do you think there's room to include the possibility that your assertions were not self-evident? That they required some explanation? That perhaps you did not communicate effectively? That there could be valid reasons to disagree with your viewpoint?

John Swanson

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

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.

I understand your stance in all of this. Dont get me wrong. You are in sports a somebody, not an anonimous person in the virtual world. You post with your own name, have done this always according to your own words. I respect that. I also respect the fact you dont give your opinion, and stay to the scientific facts. I also understand that very well since it would have impact in the real world when the respected physiologist Andy Coggan would state on an internet forum some riders are probably doping, or that some riders performances are of the charts, subliminal; mutant. Just ask Jonathan Vaughters how that works, outing his riders on this forum.

I also like facts. I also like statistics. But what I like the most are patterns.

Returning to your post now:

1) "simply based on the power output"

I totally agree. My motto, always, is the when/why/who/where/what question.

For example:
where = Sestriere
when = 1999
who = Armstrong
what = climbing like a mountaingoat whilst never ever been able to do this before
why = lots of r_epo/hgh/corticosteroids

Armstrongs estimated power on that climb was not of the charts. It simply was the 'who' was doing 'what'. Factually he never tested positive, but we can assume/sort of know he doped since childhood.

Now another easy one, Mauro Santambrogio. Always been a nice domestique, little climber. Nothing really spectacular. Changes teams last winter, comes at a team with a quite well known doctor and suddenly is able to climb with the best of his contemporaries. His estimated power numbers are not of the charts. Gets popped for r_epo last month.
Who is doing what, where, when, why?

Could you as a scientist agree with that line of reasoning?

2 emphasize the additional uncertainty that results from estimating power

There are some uncertainties in the estimates, of course, just like there are uncertainties in the SRM systems. Hell, even the scientist of FDJ - Fred Grappe - the other day made quite a mistake in his estimate of the power output of Froome on the Bonascre by misplacing the climb.

Nevertheless, some riders have released their power files and the average percentage of fault is about 2%. That is an indication in my book. No proof.

But, when so much riders being estimateted at certain wattages all have been either proven dopers or have come forward they doped, would it be based on statistics strange to say that someone who comes in the neighbourhood of those accomplishments has a whisker of dope surrounding him?

Who is doing what.

 

[veganrob]

Well put FGL

 

[Benotti69]

I guess guys like Coggan would be out of jobs if everything was pointed towards the doping being the key ingredient in the success and not the sports science.

 

[acoggan]

I guess guys like Coggan would be out of jobs if everything was pointed towards the doping being the key ingredient in the success and not the sports science.

Again, you seem to be laboring under a misconception regarding what I do for a living. I'm a metabolic/exercise physiologist who is paid by a medical school to chase federal grants, which in the US means studying sick people (e.g., patients with heart failure), not healthy athletes. Anything and everything I do related to cycling is really merely a hobby/personal interest.

 

[Benotti69]

Again, you seem to be laboring under a misconception regarding what I do for a living. I'm a metabolic/exercise physiologist who is paid by a medical school to chase federal grants, which in the US means studying sick people (e.g., patients with heart failure), not healthy athletes. Anything and everything I do related to cycling is really merely a hobby/personal interest.

So you are a psuedo scientist. Brailsford thinks you are full of crap.