Andy Coggan discussion thread

[acoggan]

I sort of agree, except think you are looking at it in black and white terms when reality is much more grey. Even doping sanctions are usually just a case of a certain threshold of evidence being reached.

Right, except for one thing: it is the anti-doping authorities prerogative to take shades of grey and turn them into distinct black-and-white. Me, I can't do that...so in my world, things remain grey unless/until they say otherwise.

 

[Cerberus]

Right, except for one thing: it is the anti-doping authorities prerogative to take shades of grey and turn them into distinct black-and-white. Me, I can't do that...so in my world, things remain grey unless/until they say otherwise.

It is of cause you priviledge to deposit you judgement in the hand of someone else, but in the real world evidence is evidence. If the antidoping authorities convict somone it doesn't actually prove that they're guilty and if the authorities do not convict them it doesn't prove that the evidence isn't conclusive.

 

[Franklin]

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).

Andy, this is a strawman.

We say it's an indicator, you dismiss it as it's not 100% evidence. And this is why youhave been proven to be on the wrong side of the argument time and time again. Your refusal to acknowledge it's suspicous is what makes your comments stand out as utterly futile.... as every time it's proven the suspicions were right.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Andy, this is a strawman.

We say it's an indicator, you dismiss it as it's not 100% evidence. And this is why youhave been proven to be on the wrong side of the argument time and time again. Your refusal to acknowledge it's suspicous is what makes your comments stand out as utterly futile.... as every time it's proven the suspicions were right.

Careful, you'll get banned for questioning Coggan...

He is claiming to remain in a gray state of mind, but says explicitly that it is impossible to use time and estimated power output to make any conclusion...which isn't a gray area at all, but I digress. Froome is riding at levels sustained only by known dopers, and if that doesn't cause you suspicion, then I am guessing you must be from a big island somewhere off the coast of France...or maybe from an island off the coast of that island...either way, I don't have to actually get a scientist to test my milk and confirm it has spoiled, I can smell it for myself and make that determination.

 

[Almeisan]

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

Same answer.

You believe someone can burn more kcal per second on a bike for 10 hours than one can consume per second during an eating competition?

You really believe that given enough time for exceptional talents to emerge and enough time to improve, human performance will go towards infinity?

If not, you believe watts can be used to prove 100% someone doped. You just refuse to admit it.

I believe 100% you are lying here. And you are a bad liar.

 

[acoggan]

You believe someone can burn more kcal per second on a bike for 10 hours than one can consume per second during an eating competition?

You really believe that given enough time for exceptional talents to emerge and enough time to improve, human performance will go towards infinity?

If not, you believe watts can be used to prove 100% someone doped. You just refuse to admit it.

I believe 100% you are lying here. And you are a bad liar.

When the anti-doping authorities accept power data as evidence of doping (which would be a very poor decision, IMO), then, and only then, could it be used to prove doping.

 

[Franklin]

When the anti-doping authorities accept power data as evidence of doping (which would be a very poor decision, IMO), then, and only then, could it be used to prove doping.

Andy, you keep repeating that strawman.

It's about indicating if a performance is suspicous. And on that count power data irrefutably has a rather good track record.

Your retort that this is not admisable evidence, sure, but since when is this CAS? All we do is guesstimate who are clean... and sadly enough our track record is very good. Which shows that it's shooting fish in a barrel.

 

[badboygolf16v]

When the anti-doping authorities accept power data as evidence of doping (which would be a very poor decision, IMO), then, and only then, could it be used to prove doping.

You have wilfully missed the point.

 

[acoggan]

Andy, this is a strawman.

We say it's an indicator, you dismiss it as it's not 100% evidence. And this is why youhave been proven to be on the wrong side of the argument time and time again. Your refusal to acknowledge it's suspicous is what makes your comments stand out as utterly futile.... as every time it's proven the suspicions were right.

1) But I have never been on "the wrong side of the argument", because I've never publicly claimed to know who is or isn't guilty of doping.

2) It's fine to be suspicious based on power data...I just don't think we know enough about what is or isn't possible (as well as what people have/haven't actually done) to draw any definitive conclusions. The latter is, as Brailsford has termed it, pseudo-science.

 

[Grayguard]

1) But I have never been on "the wrong side of the argument", because I've never publicly claimed to know who is or isn't guilty of doping.

2) It's fine to be suspicious based on power data...I just don't think we know enough about what is or isn't possible (as well as what people have/haven't actually done) to draw any definitive conclusions. The latter is, as Brailsford has termed it, pseudo-science.

Since you quote Brailsford; here's another one:
Mountain stages no longer get won by minutes, but by seconds. You can see cycling is clean because nobody can do long attacks in mountain stages anymore.
/Brailsford a year ago

 

[acoggan]

Andy, you keep repeating that strawman.

It's about indicating if a performance is suspicous. And on that count power data irrefutably has a rather good track record.

Your retort that this is not admisable evidence, sure, but since when is this CAS? All we do is guesstimate who are clean... and sadly enough our track record is very good. Which shows that it's shooting fish in a barrel.

It's not a strawman, as evidenced by the mere fact that people think they can specific a specific value for the "doping line".

 

[Benotti69]

1) But I have never been on "the wrong side of the argument", because I've never publicly claimed to know who is or isn't guilty of doping.

2) It's fine to be suspicious based on power data...I just don't think we know enough about what is or isn't possible (as well as what people have/haven't actually done) to draw any definitive conclusions. The latter is, as Brailsford has termed it, pseudo-science.

Ah Brailsford that rock of honesty

 

[Zam_Olyas]

Since you quote Brailsford; here's another one:
Mountain stages no longer get won by minutes, but by seconds. You can see cycling is clean because nobody can do long attacks in mountain stages anymore.
/Brailsford a year ago

do you have a link for this? I have been searching for awhile now.

 

[acoggan]

Since you quote Brailsford; here's another one:
Mountain stages no longer get won by minutes, but by seconds. You can see cycling is clean because nobody can do long attacks in mountain stages anymore.
/Brailsford a year ago

Who first said, "It is better to keep your mouth shut and appear foolish than to open it and remove all doubt"?

 

[Franklin]

1) But I have never been on "the wrong side of the argument", because I've never publicly claimed to know who is or isn't guilty of doping.

Sorry, technically this is true, but this is where the appearance is extremely heavy against you.

As soon as someone here starts to talk about power you trot out "We don't know if this is impossible clean"... without the caveat "but yes, this is rather high". As long as you keep attacking anyone who points out powerdata it amounts to dismissing it as an indicator.

Besides... you keep on erecting the same strawman over and over again. What do you hope to gain with that tactic? I can only guess you are here to dismiss power data all together from this discussion. And that's where you come of on the wrong side as power data is of course a very good indicator.

2) It's fine to be suspicious based on power data...I just don't think we know enough about what is or isn't possible (as well as what people have/haven't actually done) to draw any definitive conclusions. The latter is, as Brailsford has termed it, pseudo-science.

We don't know Andy... but on the other hand, we do know that around 6± the statistics are extremely heavily stacked as most of them indeed have been found out to be doping. As a scientist you know fully well that's actually a nice basis to start with.

I don't say powerdata should be admissable, far from it as I agree with you it's nowhere near suitabe for court evidence. But this is not CAS.

An example: Our DOJ checks suspicuous people who suddenly spend large sums of money on cars and houses. The spending of money isn't evidence... but it's an indicator something is going on.

 

[Grayguard]

do you have a link for this? I have been searching for awhile now.

Only this: http://inthedrops.wordpress.com/2013/07/14/tour-de-france-froome-wins-again/#more-1057

hmm, page "not found" 10 minutes after I posted it... Weird. I'll try and find another.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://inthedrops.wordpress.com/

Google still got it cached.

Just in case, here is a screenshot of the page:
http://sdrv.ms/12yWfnL

 

[Grayguard]

Who first said, "It is better to keep your mouth shut and appear foolish than to open it and remove all doubt"?

You tell me. And while you're at it, tell me how many of the TdF riders I've been cheering the last 20 years, and thought to be clean, actually were dopers

EDIT: But great argument ;p

 

[luckyboy]

All I've found about that Brailsford quote is

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/brailsford-doping-is-addictive-like-going-from-marijuana-to-cocaine

"If people want the entertainment value of riders attacking each other, stopping, attacking each other again and again, then go back to 'old cycling', which will give you the capability to do that," he told Cyclingnews.

"If you want clean sport and clean cycling, then it's going to be different. You can't have it both ways. There's an element of reality about what were doing."

the stuff about mountain stages being won by seconds not minutes sounds really familiar though

 

[Franklin]

It's not a strawman, as evidenced by the mere fact that people think they can specific a specific value for the "doping line".

Andy... are you seriously trying to deny that 6.0± is a line where usually people get caught????

Those "people who think they can specify a specific value for the doping line" seem to be spot on if we look at history. Even you can't deny this.

So not only is it a strawman, it seems you really have an untenable stance here.

I fully agree it's not admitable evidence, I fully agree you of all people should watch your mouth as people will run with it if you made even the tiniest suspicion. But I do not understand why you keep on trying to dismiss the powerdata analysis here. Don't comment on it, don't try to dismiss it on very shaky grounds as you seem to be doing again and again.

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

Who first said, "It is better to keep your mouth shut and appear foolish than to open it and remove all doubt"?

Whoever it was, you should have listened.

 

[Franklin]

Whoever it was, you should have listened.

Oh come on... not this again.

 

[Glacier]

Who first said, "It is better to keep your mouth shut and appear foolish than to open it and remove all doubt"?

Speaking of quotes.

http://espn.go.com/olympics/tdf2012...-de-france-more-human-more-boring-less-doping

Someone would attack and Mick (Sky rider Michael Rogers) would say, 'Just leave them. He can't sustain that,'" Wiggins said. "It's not possible to sustain that if we're riding 450 watts, someone's going to have to sustain 500 watts to stay away on a 20-minute climb, which is not possible anymore unless you've got a couple of extra liters of blood."

So are have the average watt count lowered this year or did they just forget to tell Dawg?

 

[Grayguard]

Speaking of quotes.

http://espn.go.com/olympics/tdf2012...-de-france-more-human-more-boring-less-doping



So are have the average watt count lowered this year or did they just forget to tell Dawg?

Nice article/quote - I guess Froome never got around to reading this

 

[acoggan]

Sorry, technically this is true, but this is where the appearance is extremely heavy against you.

Only to those who misinterpret what I say...and I don't know how to make myself any clearer than repeatedly stating "I'm not referring to any particular rider".

As soon as someone here starts to talk about power you trot out "We don't know if this is impossible clean"... without the caveat "but yes, this is rather high". As long as you keep attacking anyone who points out powerdata it amounts to dismissing it as an indicator.

Pointing out where I disagree with someone is not attacking them.

Besides... you keep on erecting the same strawman over and over again. What do you hope to gain with that tactic? I can only guess you are here to dismiss power data all together from this discussion. And that's where you come of on the wrong side as power data is of course a very good indicator.

Well if everyone here is willing to agree that you can't determine whether or not someone is doping based on their power data, then I can go home. I don't believe that is the case, however...and of course there are always those who are new to the arena, who might mistakenly conclude that indeed can, if someone doesn't off an alternative perspective.

We don't know Andy... but on the other hand, we do know that around 6± the statistics are extremely heavily stacked as most of them indeed have been found out to be doping. As a scientist you know fully well that's actually a nice basis to start with.

So is the mere fact that they are professional athletes.

I don't say powerdata should be admissable, far from it as I agree with you it's nowhere near suitabe for court evidence. But this is not CAS.

An example: Our DOJ checks suspicuous people who suddenly spend large sums of money on cars and houses. The spending of money isn't evidence... but it's an indicator something is going on.

Fine, be suspicious, I don't have any problem with that (although you won't find me publicly stating any such suspicions, as it is simply not my style). The problem, however, is that many people don't just stop there. Rather, they're willing to convict people of doping simply based on their (often only estimated) power output.

 

[Grayguard]

Only to those who misinterpret what I say...and I don't know how to make myself any clearer than repeatedly stating "I'm not referring to any particular rider".



Pointing out where I disagree with someone is not attacking them.



Well if everyone here is willing to agree that you can't determine whether or not someone is doping based on their power data, then I can go home. I don't believe that is the case, however...and of course there are always those who are new to the arena, who might mistakenly conclude that indeed can, if someone doesn't off an alternative perspective.



So is the mere fact that they are professional athletes.



Fine, be suspicious, I don't have any problem with that (although you won't find me publicly stating any such suspicions, as it is simply not my style). The problem, however, is that many people don't just stop there. Rather, they're willing to convict people of doping simply based on their (often only estimated) power output.

So you attack people for accusing Froome for doping in the "Clinic" in the Froome thread? Ignoring all similarities with Armstrong while doing so...