Andy Coggan discussion thread

[acoggan]

You tell me.

No idea.

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

Again, no idea.

BTW, in case it wasn't clear: I was referring to Brailsford.

 

[acoggan]

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

Again, stating my disagreement is not attacking someone...and I would state my disagreement regardless of the individual in question.

 

[Grayguard]

Again, stating my disagreement is not attacking someone...and I would state my disagreement regardless of the individual in question.

Oh, you were only stating disagreement? My bad; I thought your quote was rather more harsh, than stating a disagreement (with which I have no problem).

EDIT: Disagree all you want. History has made me a cynic. If you're not - good for you ( I guess/hope ) If you
are not yet a cynic, I sort of envy you, however if you want me to NOT be cynic, saying "Being thought an idiot is better than opening your mouth and proving it" is not the argument to do so. History is (unfortunately) on my side.

 

[Franklin]

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".

Sorry. If so many people here, among them very reasonable people as Dr. Maserati point out the packaging of your message is rather ambiguous, perhaps it is ambiguous?

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

Do I have to remind you the broad brush you painted those in the clinic yesterday (or the day before) in the brouhah that ended in several bans? In a nutshell you called all of us ignoramus who you could not spare the time to xplain your stance as we wouldn't understand it anyway.

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.

Well, that won't happen as actually you can determine someone is probably doping based on their power data.

So is the mere fact that they are professional athletes.

So you say it's shooting fish in a barrel. Don't bother to answer that as this is uncharcteristic for you and I don't think either of us wants to pursue this.

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.

Yeah, there is absolutely zero ground to convict Brad, Cadel or Chris. But this is the internetz where people go for the black/white narrrative. As this isn't Cas it should be okay. And yeah, it doesn't hurt to repeat it ever now and again.

But that still doesn't mean I don't think you are erecting a strawman on the powerdata subject

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

Oh come on... not this again.

Yeah, this. Hacks calling themselves "experts" have polluted this sport for a long time. This Coggan guy is another in the same line of people who have sh!t on the sport for the sake of their own careers. Why do you think people like this claim there's no concrete evidence, or it's unclear?

They're angling towards one day being hired by one of these fraud teams. Carmichael make a career off a fraud.

 

[Benotti69]

Yeah, this. Hacks calling themselves "experts" have polluted this sport for a long time. This Coggan guy is another in the same line of people who have sh!t on the sport for the sake of their own careers. Why do you think people like this claim there's no concrete evidence, or it's unclear?

They're angling towards one day being hired by one of these fraud teams. Carmichael make a career off a fraud.

Bingo

10char..

 

[acoggan]

Pseudo-science is what this Coggan guy is peddling.

It's just the opposite: I'm the one taking an extremely conservative position re. the accuracy and significance of estimated power outputs, whereas pseudo-scientists take them as proof of doping.

 

[acoggan]

Yeah, this. Hacks calling themselves "experts" have polluted this sport for a long time. This Coggan guy is another in the same line of people who have sh!t on the sport for the sake of their own careers.

If anything, spending too much time on my hobby (i.e., cycling) has impeded my career...just think of all the NIH grants I could have written in the time I've spent posting to the web!

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

If anything, spending too much time on my hobby (i.e., cycling) has impeded my career...just think of all the NIH grants I could have written in the time I've spent posting to the web!

I don't think about it, since NIH grants would be wasted US taxpayer money spent on the likes of your "research".

 

[acoggan]

Oh, you were only stating disagreement? My bad; I thought your quote was rather more harsh, than stating a disagreement (with which I have no problem).

EDIT: Disagree all you want. History has made me a cynic. If you're not - good for you ( I guess/hope ) If you
are not yet a cynic, I sort of envy you, however if you want me to NOT be cynic, saying "Being thought an idiot is better than opening your mouth and proving it" is not the argument to do so. History is (unfortunately) on my side.

You seem to have misinterpreted my comment. I was merely pointing out that Brailsford might (or might not) come to regret making the statement credited to him.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

If anything, spending too much time on my hobby (i.e., cycling) has impeded my career...just think of all the NIH grants I could have written in the time I've spent posting to the web!

Ringing endorsement of the detail with which you are likely to have taken in any research you do/did? But you can always rely on the reviewers because it's their job to do the heavy lifting, right?

The topic is Froome, not acoggan.

 

[acoggan]

Sorry. If so many people here, among them very reasonable people as Dr. Maserati point out the packaging of your message is rather ambiguous, perhaps it is ambiguous?

I don't know what more I can do to make things any clearer.

Do I have to remind you the broad brush you painted those in the clinic yesterday (or the day before) in the brouhah that ended in several bans? In a nutshell you called all of us ignoramus who you could not spare the time to xplain your stance as we wouldn't understand it anyway.

All I did was paraphrase Einstein.

Well, that won't happen as actually you can determine someone is probably doping based on their power data.

Hold that thought...

So you say it's shooting fish in a barrel. Don't bother to answer that as this is uncharcteristic for you and I don't think either of us wants to pursue this.

Actually, I am going to respond, because you've missed my point: many professional athletes, in many sports, resort to doping. Given that undeniable fact, the question then becomes, how does estimated (or even directly measured) power output enter into the debate? IMO, it is simply a red herring, due to the uncertainties I have repeatedly mentioned.

 

[Grayguard]

I don't know what more I can do to make things any clearer.



All I did was paraphrase Einstein.



Hold that thought...



Actually, I am going to respond, because you've missed my point: many professional athletes, in many sports, resort to doping. Given that undeniable fact, the question then becomes, how does estimated (or even directly measured) power output enter into the debate? IMO, it is simply a red herring, due to the uncertainties I have repeatedly mentioned.

In that case, history Works against you. How many TdF Winners can you think of during the past 20 years, who have turned out to be doped?

 

[acoggan]

I don't think about it, since NIH grants would be wasted US taxpayer money spent on the likes of your "research".

And again your only response is an ad hominem attack...

 

[acoggan]

Ringing endorsement of the detail with which you are likely to have taken in any research you do/did? But you can always rely on the reviewers because it's their job to do the heavy lifting, right?

1. Anybody who knows me/my work knows that I'm extremely detailed-oriented.

2. I don't rely on reviewers to do the "heavy lifting", I've just pointed out that scientific publishing is structured in a way that makes them (actually, the editor(s)) the final gatekeepers.

The topic is Froome, not acoggan.

If thread drift bothers you so much, why did you choose to contribute to it by attacking me?

 

[acoggan]

In that case, history Works against you. How many TdF Winners can you think of during the past 20 years, who have turned out to be doped?

What does that have to do with my position?

 

[Grayguard]

What does that have to do with my position?

I am not sure - what is your position???

I thought it was, that Froome is clean; in which case I have to say: I seriously doubt it.

And thats why is posted what I did.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

1. Anybody who knows me/my work knows that I'm extremely detailed-oriented.

2. I don't rely on reviewers to do the "heavy lifting", I've just pointed out that scientific publishing is structured in a way that makes them (actually, the editor(s)) the final gatekeepers.



If thread drift bothers you so much, why did you choose to contribute to it by attacking me?

Why not just post about the topic instead of posting about yourself every chance you get. You suggest cycling is your diversion, but judging by the posts on this thread (where you've never directly addressed the topic of the thread), your #1 topic is yourself. I don't think that is surprising to anyone.

Now, once again, the topic is Froome. I'll just drop it after this because I'm sure I'm treading on thin ground, but please, if you want to post on topic, feel free to do so as there is much discussion swirling (like the wind on Ventoux) around Mr. Froome.

 

[acoggan]

I am not sure - what is your position???

I thought it was, that Froome is clean

Sigh...

How many times do I have to say it? I have never publicly taken a position re. the guilt/innocence of an individual athlete, and I never will.

 

[acoggan]

Why not just post about the topic instead of posting about yourself every chance you get.

I merely responded to Moose McKnuckles' attack on me. Your ire should therefore be directed at him, not me.

 

[Grayguard]

Sigh...

How many times do I have to say it? I have never publicly taken a position re. the guilt/innocence of an individual athlete, and I never will.

So, you're only implying that unless there's hard proof you wont beliEve it? Good for you. It disapointed me badly in the past. Riis, Armstrong and many other legendary riders turned out to be dopers.

Now I believe in what I see; if it's TOO good to be true, it probably is....

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

And again your only response is an ad hominem attack...

It's just the truth. I've seen many, many people just like you pollute true scientific research. As a statistician, I steer clear of your types whenever possible.

This forum is poorer for your presence. I hope people don't fall for the nonsense you peddle on these boards.

Edit: Just saw sittingbison's request. I won't quote acoggan again on this thread.

 

[silverrocket]

[... how does estimated (or even directly measured) power output enter into the debate? IMO, it is simply a red herring, due to the uncertainties I have repeatedly mentioned.

I disagree. Given that so many athletes have and continue to dope, and so many have evidently continued to get away with for long periods of time before being caught (eg. Tyson Gay), it is obvious that current methods of catching dopers are insufficient. Be it masking agents, scheduling to beat tests, designer drugs, whatever. So those wanting clean cycling have every right to look for proxys that correlate with doping but cannot be manipulated. Power is a good one for this. Yes, it is full of estimation and approximation, and correlation is not yet established, but can only improve if we keep it on the table as a viable option. Blood testing used to be a flimsy way to catch dopers, because it was also filled with unknowns, estimates, poorly understood hmct thresholds, etc. But we (collective "we"...) continued to work at because we knew it was harder to hide something in blood than urine. I feel "power" is like that, and is a good way to quantify performance itself.

 

[ScienceIsCool]

It's just the opposite: I'm the one taking an extremely conservative position re. the accuracy and significance of estimated power outputs, whereas pseudo-scientists take them as proof of doping.

No. You're engaging in sophistry. It's very boring.

John Swanson

 

[Ripper]

Sigh...

How many times do I have to say it? I have never publicly taken a position re. the guilt/innocence of an individual athlete, and I never will.

You just like to take pot shots at folks who do not have definitive proof because you like to

Of course, once the proof is definitive, usually a rider gets banned

EDIT - dang, I yet again fall for it and post re: AC and then see a post saying stop replying. I need to be more patient!!