Armstrong Lies

[Hugh Januss]

Notice how he doesn't respond to Science's post which blows his power calc. doesn't work trolling out of the water.

 

[guilder]

When Armstrong learned to ride his own race, no one could touch him.

All this talk about him not showing any early ability is laughable. You people simply don't know what you're talking about.

 

[Anonymous]

But you didn't talk about the effects of EPO - you brought in Dr. Coyles discredited work on Armstrong to show how LA improved by 6% (sic).

I said "about 6%". It was a lot closer than BikeCentric's 20%.

But as I keep saying, the part of Colye's work that is hotly disputed is how Armstrong made the improvement - the weight and the training thing. The improvement itself, however, is not disputed by anyone as far as I know. Do you understand now?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I ......... Do you understand now?

But Dr. Coyles explanation on how Armstrong improved has been ridiculed - Bikecentics observations are that LA got his improvements through a needle.
Do you understand now?

 

[Anonymous]

Notice how he doesn't respond to Science's post which blows his power calc. doesn't work trolling out of the water.

But I did address it.

There's an irony here since I read a thread where a previous poster got into quite a debate with BikeCentric on the reliability of power data, trying to show that Contador may well have produced more power than ever recorded in the tour. Only that time the previous poster was saying this is how power is always recorded and its the best we've got, imperfect as it is, and BikeCentric was determined to say it was a lot of balls.

 

[Hugh Januss]

But look at all the different factors that go into it. This post about the Contador issue is a real head F. Not a simple or reliable business.
http://www.sportsscientists.com/2009/07/tour-2009-contador-climb.html

Which is why I would rather listen to an expert than an expoliceman from Leicester.

 

[Anonymous]

But Dr. Coyles explanation on how Armstrong improved has been ridiculed - Bikecentics observations are that LA got his improvements through a needle.
Do you understand now?

Yes it was always clear that this was BikeCentric's view. Glad you've caught up with where we are. Anyway, later chaps.

 

[ScienceIsCool]

But look at all the different factors that go into it. This post about the Contador issue is a real head F. Not a simple or reliable business.
http://www.sportsscientists.com/2009/07/tour-2009-contador-climb.html

Oh, no. There weren't any additional factors at all. Just an attempt to place error bars on the small number of relevant variables I mentioned previously such as h (height) and wind speed (aerodynamics correction).

Even with a conservative estimate of the errors (i.e., a lower limit for power), Contador put out some unreal numbers that day.

John Swanson

 

[BYOP88]

When Armstrong learned to ride his own race, no one could touch him.

Is that due to the bodyguard and "donations" to the UCI?

All this talk about him not showing any early ability is laughable. You people simply don't know what you're talking about.

I thought the Lance Armstrong PR covered that by saying before cancer he wasn't fully "prepared" but after beating death, he was like totally focused etc etc etc etc etc

 

[Dr. Maserati]

When Armstrong learned to ride his own race, no one could touch him.

All this talk about him not showing any early ability is laughable. You people simply don't know what you're talking about.

Here is a report of Stage 9 in the 1995 Tour the first mountain stage - Armstrong tries to break away to join a group, fails and finishes the stage 40th at 17:58 back.

 

[Hugh Januss]

But I did address it.

There's an irony here since I read a thread where a previous poster got into quite a debate with BikeCentric on the reliability of power data, trying to show that Contador may well have produced more power than ever recorded in the tour. Only that time the previous poster was saying this is how power is always recorded and its the best we've got, imperfect as it is, and BikeCentric was determined to say it was a lot of balls.

"Well it's complicated and a lot of different stuff goes on when it happens bla bla bla" is hardly addressing anything.
Those sort of calculations are not so concrete that they can stand alone mean an individual is doping, no matter how much they may indicate that.
They are however workable to indicate trends in the group as a whole and the way the graph rises and falls along with the dope history timeline is not just coincidence.

 

[Hugh Januss]

Here is a report of Stage 9 in the 1995 Tour the first mountain stage - Armstrong tries to break away to join a group, fails and finishes the stage 40th at 17:58 back.

Well see, he wasn't "riding his own race" there, whatever that means.

 

[Stephen D Aalderink]

An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim.

Known far and wide as a fallacy...you get an A for english 100
(my favorite was always the red herring, not to be upstaged by the strawman of course)

 

[BikeCentric]

But I did address it.

There's an irony here since I read a thread where a previous poster got into quite a debate with BikeCentric on the reliability of power data, trying to show that Contador may well have produced more power than ever recorded in the tour. Only that time the previous poster was saying this is how power is always recorded and its the best we've got, imperfect as it is, and BikeCentric was determined to say it was a lot of balls.

Oh what a surprise, BPC trying to make stuff up again. YOU (BPC) claimed that Contador "broke an all-time power record" at the TDF this year. I called BS on your claim because it's not supported by facts. Yes his VAM calculation shows that he flew. But we do not have his SRM to know what his power output was.

And I'll repeat what I said before: it does not make sense to use VAM to accuse or exonerate someone of doping; there are too many variables.

 

[Polish]

Here is a report of Stage 9 in the 1995 Tour the first mountain stage - Armstrong tries to break away to join a group, fails and finishes the stage 40th at 17:58 back.

Was Lance 23 years old during that Tour? With cancer too?

How did Alberto do in the Tour when he was 23?
30 mins off the pace?

 

[Race Radio]

How did Alberto do in the Tour when he was 23?
30 mins off the pace?

Alberto did not do the Tour when he was 23 because many of teammates were involved in OP so his team was not allowed to start

The next year, at 24, he won the Tour.

Why do you ask?

 

[rata de sentina]

Why do you ask?

Because he uses only the best trolling lures to catch the fishies.

 

[Polish]

Alberto did not do the Tour when he was 23 because many of teammates were involved in OP so his team was not allowed to start

The next year, at 24, he won the Tour.

Why do you ask?

Sprocket may need to re-check my math, but I show Alberto 23 years old in the 2005 TdF....finished 30mins or so off the winner.

And yes, Actovegin was legal when Lance supposedly used it.
And yes, it was many years before he "bribed the UCI $500,000"

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Was Lance 23 years old during that Tour? With cancer too?

How did Alberto do in the Tour when he was 23?
30 mins off the pace?

This was Lances 3rd attempt at the Tour.
That was one stage of the Tour - he lost 1 hour 28 minutes in total.

Fignon and Merckx both won GTs by 23.
I explained this in detail on another thread - it is not the age that a rider wins their GT - but at an early age or within their first few GTs it is already evident who is likely to be a future contender.

Lance was 28 when he finished 4th in the Vuelya.
Alberto was out for the early part of his career with a serious head injury.
Lance did not have cancer until 1996 which is why I gave examples of 95, not 96.

 

[Polish]

The Trout Farm aka the Clinic

Because he uses only the best trolling lures to catch the fishies.

No need to use lures in The Clinic lol.
Heck, you do not need ANY bait at all.

Just throw out a bare hook

 

[Race Radio]

Sprocket may need to re-check my math, but I show Alberto 23 years old in the 2005 TdF....finished 30mins or so off the winner.

And yes, Actovegin was legal when Lance supposedly used it.
And yes, it was many years before he "bribed the UCI $500,000"

Sprocket1 is no longer here. He has been banned and his parole officer does not let him have access to the computer often because of the stalking episode.

AC was born December 6 1982. He won his first Tour in July 2007 at the age of 24.

Actovegin was indeed banned under the "method" rule. EPO was banned in the same manner even prior to it being restricted by name. The IOC clarified the ban 5 months after USPS was found dumping used bags of it.

The $500,000 "Donation" was given in October 1999.

 

[131313]

Oh, no. There weren't any additional factors at all. Just an attempt to place error bars on the small number of relevant variables I mentioned previously such as h (height) and wind speed (aerodynamics correction).

Even with a conservative estimate of the errors (i.e., a lower limit for power), Contador put out some unreal numbers that day.

John Swanson

Do you really consider 6.25 w/kg for 22 minutes to be 'unreal'? I honestly don't. That's nothing compared to Armstrong d'huez 40 minute 6.4 w/kg TT, which occurred at stage 16 and after a few mountain stages.

I'm not saying that Contador's clean, but Verbier is hardly evidence, and VAM is useless metric.

Notice that Armstrong's Ventoux ascent would never appear on there, given the wind and rolling resistance, but if you run the w/kg numbers, that's probably the most exceptional ride of them all (the year he gifted it to Pantani). I've seen reasonable estimates at 7 w/kg for that ride.

I guess Lim will call him Frankenstein now.

 

[ScienceIsCool]

Do you really consider 6.25 w/kg for 22 minutes to be 'unreal'? I honestly don't. That's nothing compared to Armstrong d'huez 40 minute 6.4 w/kg TT, which occurred at stage 16 and after a few mountain stages.

I'm not saying that Contador's clean, but Verbier is hardly evidence, and VAM is useless metric.

Notice that Armstrong's Ventoux ascent would never appear on there, given the wind and rolling resistance, but if you run the w/kg numbers, that's probably the most exceptional ride of them all (the year he gifted it to Pantani). I've seen reasonable estimates at 7 w/kg for that ride.

I guess Lim will call him Frankenstein now.

Except that Contador climbed Verbier at a very conservative estimate of 6.78 W/kg (Science of Sport - http://www.sportsscientists.com/2009/07/tour-2009-contador-climb.html)

Not sure where you got 6.25 W/kg from.

Yes, climbs at a sustained threshold of 7 W/kg are very suspicious...

John Swanson

 

[131313]

Except that Contador climbed Verbier at a very conservative estimate of 6.78 W/kg (Science of Sport - http://www.sportsscientists.com/2009/07/tour-2009-contador-climb.html)

Not sure where you got 6.25 W/kg from.

Yes, climbs at a sustained threshold of 7 W/kg are very suspicious...

John Swanson

I got it from running the numbers myself, after looking at all of the available data, and came up with about 390W for a 64K rider. I read the link, but I don't seen anywhere that Ross made any calculations of his own. Alex Simmons ran some numbers and came up with a low of 387W given an average 10 kph tailwind. Having ridden up that climb, I can tell you that there's almost always a prevailing tailwind, and the switchback parts which should be a headwind are somehow sheltered by the mountain. In otherwords, it's a very fast climb.

I think many of the people who ran the numbers also used unrealistic drag numbers, assigning a single, high number, when Contador spent a significant amount of time drafting.

For a slower climb or a hillclimb TT, it's a lot easier to calculate this stuff. On a shallower climb where wind and drag play a bigger role given the speeds, there's a LOT more handwaving involved. I'd say his power was probably between 6.25 and 6.5, so it may be suspicious, or it may not. But I think one could make a legitimate case for it being within the realm of what's possible, and there are too many unknowns to use this as 'doping evidence'. I think Ross actually does take great pains to point this out, though I missed it the first time I read his post. I think he's right.

 

[rata de sentina]

Except that Contador climbed Verbier at a very conservative estimate of 6.78 W/kg (Science of Sport - http://www.sportsscientists.com/2009/07/tour-2009-contador-climb.html)

Having read the article on a number of occasions I can't agree with your characterisation of the 6.68 W/kg as "very conservative". In fact it's an estimate that is based upon a number of assumptions which are pretty clearly stated. At least some factors which could easily drag the number down are not included due to an absence of data. This is clearly stated. Any sensible scientist would see this as having fun with the numbers which gives a rough idea of what is going on. No conclusions can or should be drawn.