Andy Coggan discussion thread

[thehog]

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

In the US we call it an ambulance chaser.

Private health insurance pays well. Chase it. Sick people withstanding. They are a commodity.

 

[acoggan]

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

Considering the way Sky relies on my ideas and the way Brailsford dropped "normalized power" into his statement, I don't think that I'm who he had in mind with that comment.

 

[acoggan]

In the US we call it an ambulance chaser.

An ambulance chaser is a lawyer, not a physician much less a scientist.

 

[thehog]

An ambulance chaser is a lawyer, not a physician much less a scientist.

Or a comedy writer. Or a Chris Cardickael wannabe.

When do the Jane Fonda powercycle DVDs come out?

And you don't live in the US. Visa denied.

 

[acoggan]

And you don't live in the US. Visa denied.

Uh, yeah, I do (in fact, they celebrated my birth here by making Alaska the 49th state ).

 

[Benotti69]

Considering the way Sky relies on my ideas and the way Brailsford dropped "normalized power" into his statement, I don't think that I'm who he had in mind with that comment.

So you're Sky's Chris Comical. Wonder why Froome wasn't quoting you

 

[thehog]

Uh, yeah, I do (in fact, they celebrated my birth here by making Alaska the 49th state ).

Ghey. 51st state.

We laugh about you over brewskis.

But carry on. Your like totally awesome, right now. Like totally respected.

 

[acoggan]

So you're Sky's Chris Comical.

Bad analogy: I am not a coach (figurehead or otherwise), nor do I have any connection to Sky. IOW, their decision to embrace some of my ideas is entirely their own, and there is nothing that I could do to stop them from employing them even if I wanted to. But, considering all the other things you've gotten wrong (e.g., my profession, where I live, the meaning of ambulance chaser), I'm not surprised that you missed the boat here as well.

 

[silverrocket]

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

Wow, John writes a very fair, reasonable, and forgiving (to you) post, and you brush it aside like crumbs fallen from the toaster. You also do it with a general insult of the entire forum, as if any lack of understanding couldn't POSSIBLY be your fault, so must be everybody else's. [inserts emoticon showing face that is both sad and irritated].

 

[Ripper]

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.

You see, it's these little digs that reveal a certain doooooosh like personality trait. I think John/SiC made a pretty decent point (we DO need a like button CN), but I just don't think it's your personality to follow through on that feedback.

EDIT - and now I've read all the comments to stop talking about this stuff!

 

[Franklin]

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

Andy, you realize that Chewbacca is spot on here and you are on the losing side of the equation?

Chewbacca: You can predict if someone is doping based on his wattage.
ACoggan: No you cannot as we do not know the physiological limits.

Endresult: Rider gets popped.

Chewbacca: 1
Acoggan: 0

Clearly wattages can be used to predict if somone is doping.

I truly do not understand you keep on disputing this fact. It's not definite slam dunk 100% court ready evidence... but it's definitely a very good indicator.

Yeah the caveat should be repeated: "It could be real". But the caveat does not invallidate the whole excercise.

 

[acoggan]

I can live with that.

However this has the implicit falacy that we are not a court of law. What Andy seems to continuously ignore is that wattages are indeed an indicator. By focussing on "we really can't tell" he dismsses the cold hard fact that these numbers might be possible... but usually are indeed bad news.

This hammering on one side of the equation does make Andy come out as staunch defender of suspect riders. And as certainly usually the rider in question is caught it looks like Andy is usually wrong.

I understand his position, but really, he should realize that the way he presents thing is an invitation of harsh criticism. It's one thing to argue I could have 10 royal flushes in a row. It's another thing not to mention that this is extremely rare and my coat should be checked for extra cards.

1. I have never defended any individual rider, only a logical position.

2. The only thing that would make me change that position would be new (and remarkably different) physiological knowledge.

IOW, I'll leave the playing to crowds to politicians and kids in junior high school who wish to be popular...

 

[Ripper]

1. I have never defended any individual rider, only a logical position.

2. The only thing that would make me change that position would be new (and remarkably different) physiological knowledge.

IOW, I'll leave the playing to crowds to politicians and kids in junior high school who wish to be popular...

Your logical position seems to often suggest that riders who are later found guilty should not be called out on their questionable performances. but without that pressure, it is debatable if said rider would ever get popped.

 

[acoggan]

Someone needs to start an acoggan thread...

What, to discuss whether or not I was doping when I won the 880 y dash at our junior high school conference championships back in 1973??

 

[ChewbaccaD]

What, to discuss whether or not I was doping when I won the 880 y dash at our junior high school conference championships back in 1973??

I was thinking of a cesspool of commentary on how superior you are to everyone...call it ego doping.

The topic is Froome, contribute or STFU <- you seem to like the intertubes shorthand...

 

[Scott SoCal]

What, to discuss whether or not I was doping when I won the 880 y dash at our junior high school conference championships back in 1973??

Naw, just your more recent work.

 

[acoggan]

The topic is Froome, contribute or STFU

Seems to me that I've contributed more of value than your endless ad hominem attacks.

 

[acoggan]

Naw, just your more recent work.

Do you mean last year, when I dug up Wiggins' data to perform the critical power analysis that indicated that he hadn't suddenly improved in 2012, then shared his actual power from one of the Tour TTs? Or do you mean this year, when I drew peoples' attention to statements re. Froome's actual FTP by someone who presumably has been privvy to his data?

As I have stated on numerous occasions, I don't believe you can definitively determine whether or not someone is doping based on their power output (esp. when estimated vs. measured directly). For those who believe otherwise, however, such data add quantitative insight, so I share them when possible. The question is, what of substance have you contributed lately?

(To keep things somewhat on topic: I'll see if I can dig up enough publically-available data on Froome to also do a critical power analysis.)

 

[Ripper]

Do you mean last year, when I dug up Wiggins' data to perform the critical power analysis that indicated that he hadn't suddenly improved in 2012, then shared his actual power from one of the Tour TTs? Or do you mean this year, when I drew peoples' attention to statements re. Froome's actual FTP by someone who presumably has been privvy to his data?

As I have stated on numerous occasions, I don't believe you can definitively determine whether or not someone is doping based on their power output (esp. when estimated vs. measured directly). For those who believe otherwise, however, such data add quantitative insight, so I share them when possible. The question is, what of substance have you contributed lately?

(To keep things somewhat on topic: I'll see if I can dig up enough publically-available data on Froome to also do a critical power analysis.)

What if someone had an average power output of 1000w on an hour long climb? Would that be definitive?

 

[acoggan]

What if someone had an average power output of 1000w on an hour long climb? Would that be definitive?

No. Definitive is when a rider is sanctioned by anti-doping agencies. Up until that point, all you have is speculation/innuendo/beliefs/suspicion/whatever you wish to call it.

(I am reminded of the comments of the moderator at a scientific talk I once attended. The debate was getting a bit heated, at least until he trotted out a series of slides showing bridges of various construction, i.e., a modern steel suspension bridge, a wooden bridge, a plank-and-rope footbridge, and a tightrope. He then drew analogies between these and how scientists use "I know", "I believe", "I think", and "I feel" to illustrate the strength of their convictions re. a particular conclusion.)

 

[Dr. Maserati]

No. Definitive is when a rider is sanctioned by anti-doping agencies. Up until that point, all you have is speculation/innuendo/beliefs/suspicion/whatever you wish to call it.

(I am reminded of the comments of the moderator at a scientific talk I once attended. The debate was getting a bit heated, at least until he trotted out a series of slides showing bridges of various construction, i.e., a modern steel suspension bridge, a wooden bridge, a plank-and-rope footbridge, and a tightrope. He then drew analogies between these and how scientists use "I know", "I believe", "I think", and "I feel" to illustrate the strength of their convictions re. a particular conclusion.)

Great.
This is a link to the UCI Anti-doping rules violations page.
All you need to do is check this once a day. Any rider on it is a doper, every other rider is not. You're welcome.

 

[Almeisan]

No. Definitive is when a rider is sanctioned by anti-doping agencies. Up until that point, all you have is speculation/innuendo/beliefs/suspicion/whatever you wish to call it.

So what if someone produces 2000w for 1 hour?

 

[acoggan]

So what if someone produces 2000w for 1 hour?

Same answer.

 

[Almeisan]

Same answer.

So what if someone produces 5000 watt for 10 hours straight?

If you still give the same answer, your answers are meaningless. Might as well burn your book.

Does anybody know what gear Froome was using when he made that 2,000,000 RPM attack?

Was his gear broken?

 

[acoggan]

So what if someone produces 5000 watt for 10 hours straight?

Same answer.

If you still give the same answer, your answers are meaningless. Might as well burn your book.

Please don't do that - it would be bad for the environment.