Armstrong's tour weight over the years

[workingclasshero]

I think you are making things up.

EDIT: Scratch that, I'll be more direct: you ARE making things up.

oh the irony of an Ed Coyle apologist accusing someone of making things up.

I'm in tears here

 

[acoggan]

oh the irony of an Ed Coyle apologist accusing someone of making things up.

I'm in tears here

1. I have never apologized for any of Ed's actions.

2. There is no proof that Ed made up any of the data in his paper on Armstrong. If there were, he wouldn't be a full professor any more, wouldn't have received a Citation Award from ACSM, etc.

 

[Cloxxki]

1. I have never apologized for any of Ed's actions.

2. There is no proof that Ed made up any of the data in his paper on Armstrong. If there were, he wouldn't be a full professor any more, wouldn't have received a Citation Award from ACSM, etc.

Doesn't someone of reputation need to go through signifcant efforts (with chance of public failure) to discredit such data before Ed would lose anything? However, I assume you went over the data yourself, else you might have volunteered for the job? Then again, Lance turned out to be one hand feeding you, as he or his entourage ended up coming to you for advice on tracks?

 

[ScienceIsCool]

I didn't make anything up. And I don't have much chance of defending myself. Any data I have belongs to the company I work for and will never be published. I can't just reference a paper. You're welcome to your opinion though. From your perspective, maybe I do just make things up. Pretty insulting, considering the product made it to market...

John Swanson

 

[acoggan]

Doesn't someone of reputation need to go through signifcant efforts (with chance of public failure) to discredit such data before Ed would lose anything?

The university investigated Ed but was unable to come up with proof that he had made up any data. I have to assume that their investigation was thorough.

However, I assume you went over the data yourself, else you might have volunteered for the job?

No, and not my job (see above).

Then again, Lance turned out to be one hand feeding you, as he or his entourage ended up coming to you for advice on tracks?

My advise was freely offered (as is almost always the case), i.e., I received no compensation of any kind (not even a peek at any of Armstrong's data).

 

[happychappy]

Schleckie has ****ed himself.

 

[workingclasshero]

The angle of the photo makes judging height difficult, but curious tricks employed to give the illusion of height.

He looks taller than Cavendish. But look at the high heels Lance is wearing... They are a different shoe than Leipheimer's, and that hat is going to add height as well... This guy is much shorter than people think.

terrible fasion sense across the board. Lance needs to look out for the fasion police too, they'll be knocking his door any minute now

 

[acoggan]

I didn't make anything up.

You were making things up when you attempted to score points by claiming that "there was a lot that was missed" in the design/construction/validation of my wind tunnel. Unfortunately for you/your reputation, I didn't miss a thing.

 

[gobuck]

When Motorola stopped it's sponsorship, the team sold the team bikes on ebay. We bought a bunch of them including Armstong's road bike. It was a 56 cm Caloi/ Eddy Merckx. My friend still has it hanging in his basement.

 

[ScienceIsCool]

You were making things up when you attempted to score points by claiming that "there was a lot that was missed" in the design/construction/validation of my wind tunnel. Unfortunately for you/your reputation, I didn't miss a thing.

Yes. You did.

Here's an example. You did not build a correct velocity profile. I.e., measuring dv/V in the area of interest - where the object under test would sit. You mentioned in passing that a hot wire anemometer is the right tool for the job. That is correct. Your use of a vane anemometer is useful only for meauring volumetric flow in a large area (an annular region ascribed by the vanes). The primary reasons a vane anemometer cannot measure dV are:

- Size. The annulus ascribed by the vanes cannot measure a local variation.
- Inertia. The vanes have more than enough momentum to obliterate the variations you are looking for.
- Temporal resolution. You cannot measure at high enough frequency (100 to 1000 Hz) to ascertain the variation in velocity

The fact that the anemometer you use is very large compared to the area of interest means you are likely to have disrupted the field that you are interested in.

Other than some calculations (which you did not present), there is no reason to believe that you have properly conditioned airflow. And even if it is, there's no indication of the where that might be valid (it is never valid over an entire cross-section of the test chamber).

Please retract that I was making things up. I was not. I simply conceded the point because:

- You didn't seem interested in listening or learning
- It just doesn't matter
- What you did was pretty good for just playing around
- I can't show you some of the things that I would like to and I was not explaining myself very well.

John Swanson

 

[acoggan]

Yes. You did.

Here's an example. You did not build a correct velocity profile. I.e., measuring dv/V in the area of interest - where the object under test would sit. You mentioned in passing that a hot wire anemometer is the right tool for the job. That is correct. Your use of a vane anemometer is useful only for meauring volumetric flow in a large area (an annular region ascribed by the vanes). The primary reasons a vane anemometer cannot measure dV are:

- Size. The annulus ascribed by the vanes cannot measure a local variation.
- Inertia. The vanes have more than enough momentum to obliterate the variations you are looking for.
- Temporal resolution. You cannot measure at high enough frequency (100 to 1000 Hz) to ascertain the variation in velocity

The fact that the anemometer you use is very large compared to the area of interest means you are likely to have disrupted the field that you are interested in.

Other than some calculations (which you did not present), there is no reason to believe that you have properly conditioned airflow. And even if it is, there's no indication of the where that might be valid (it is never valid over an entire cross-section of the test chamber).

1. You seem to be confusing turbulence intensity with flow uniformity. You need a hot-wire anemometer to measure the former, but not the latter.

2. Although I don't own a hot-wire anemometer, and therefore could only calculate the turbulence intensity based on theoretical considerations, it is incorrect to say that I did not consider the turbulence intensity ("missed it").

3. While a pressure rake might be better for measuring the flow uniformity than the small (~1 cm^2) vane anemometer that I used, it is incorrect (again) to say that I did not consider the flow uniformity ("missed it").

4. The equations commonly used to derive/describe wind tunnel parameters are widely known, and all of the necessary inputs are listed in Table 1.

5. The data presented in Figure 17 provide additional evidence that the flow was properly conditioned.

6. Longitudinally, the sting was deliberately placed at a point in the test section where the flow would be expected to be highly uniform (see Mehta and Bradshaw's book). IOW, I didn't "miss this" either.

7. SOP for wind tunnels is to use only the central portion of the test section, to avoid boundary layer effects. For example, when testing wing sections the span is generally limited to 75% of the tunnel's width. I followed this guideline, i.e., I didn't "miss this" either.

 

[ScienceIsCool]

1. You seem to be confusing turbulence intensity with flow uniformity. You need a hot-wire anemometer to measure the former, but not the latter.

2. Although I don't own a hot-wire anemometer, and therefore could only calculate the turbulence intensity based on theoretical considerations, it is incorrect to say that I did not consider the turbulence intensity ("missed it").

3. While a pressure rake might be better for measuring the flow uniformity than the small (~1 cm^2) vane anemometer that I used, it is incorrect (again) to say that I did not consider the flow uniformity ("missed it").

4. The equations commonly used to derive/describe wind tunnel parameters are widely known, and all of the necessary inputs are listed in Table 1.

5. The data presented in Figure 17 provide additional evidence that the flow was properly conditioned.

6. Longitudinally, the sting was deliberately placed at a point in the test section where the flow would be expected to be highly uniform (see Mehta and Bradshaw's book). IOW, I didn't "miss this" either.

7. SOP for wind tunnels is to use only the central portion of the test section, to avoid boundary layer effects. For example, when testing wing sections the span is generally limited to 75% of the tunnel's width. I followed this guideline, i.e., I didn't "miss this" either.

1. Then what the heck do you mean by flow uniformity? All you measured was flow rate. You could have used a wind sock for that. Uniformity describes the variation spatially and temporally. You measured neither.

2. If you calculated it, show your calculations and assumptions along with an error analysis.

3. You're missing it right now.

4. What are they, then? Show your work - or did you just make it up? Edit: Yeah, you definitely just made it up. <--- See how dumb it is to say something like that? Still waiting for you to retract your insult.

I'll stop there for now. You missed stuff. Not just this, either. The methods you used (honeycomb, mesh, etc) to condition your air are plausible, but you will need to run several tests to get the optimal configuration. Trust me, it's not possible to run a few numbers, put it together and call it good. From my experience, you're likely to be off. Way off. Something as simple as vibration from your fan could be doing some nasty stuff to your airflow.

Better yet. Let's go back a few steps and just end this. You're right, I'm wrong. I'll just let this go. I'm assuming you'll want the last word, so please include a retraction that I "made stuff up". I didn't.

John Swanson

 

[acoggan]

1. Then what the heck do you mean by flow uniformity? All you measured was flow rate. You could have used a wind sock for that. Uniformity describes the variation spatially and temporally.

Your last statement is incorrect. Flow uniformity only refers to spatial characteristics - the temporal characteristics are described by turbulence intensity for rapid fluctuations and flow unsteadiness for slow fluctuations (with "rapid" and "slow" depending on how long it takes a "packet" of air to traverse the test section).

2. If you calculated it, show your calculations and assumptions along with an error analysis.

3. You're missing it right now.

To quote REO Speedwagon: I'm not missing a thing.

4. What are they, then?

The relevant equations can be found lots of places, but this is my favorite write-up due to its logical clarity: https://dspace.lboro.ac.uk/dspace-jspui/bitstream/2134/6674/1/Passmore 1.pdf

I'll stop there for now. You missed stuff. Not just this, either. The methods you used (honeycomb, mesh, etc) to condition your air are plausible, but you will need to run several tests to get the optimal configuration.

When it comes to wind tunnel design, empiricism fell by the wayside a long, long time ago.

Trust me, it's not possible to run a few numbers, put it together and call it good. From my experience, you're likely to be off. Way off. Something as simple as vibration from your fan could be doing some nasty stuff to your airflow.

I followed well-established design principles, determined that the unsteadiness, uniformity, and angularity of the flow were within governmentally-suggested guidelines, and verified that the measured drag (CdA, actually) of simple objects agrees very closely with theoretical values (Fig. 17). The only thing I have not done is directly determine the turbulence intensity. The honeycomb, contraction, and two screens, however, were designed to also reduce that to acceptable limits. There is therefore no reason to believe that there is "nasty stuff" happening with the air flow. Even if there is, however, it wouldn't be because I "missed something", but only because of resource constraints.

 

[Neworld]

1. Then what the heck do you mean by flow uniformity? All you measured was flow rate. You could have used a wind sock for that. Uniformity describes the variation spatially and temporally. You measured neither.

2. If you calculated it, show your calculations and assumptions along with an error analysis.

3. You're missing it right now.

4. What are they, then? Show your work - or did you just make it up? Edit: Yeah, you definitely just made it up. <--- See how dumb it is to say something like that? Still waiting for you to retract your insult.

I'll stop there for now. You missed stuff. Not just this, either. The methods you used (honeycomb, mesh, etc) to condition your air are plausible, but you will need to run several tests to get the optimal configuration. Trust me, it's not possible to run a few numbers, put it together and call it good. From my experience, you're likely to be off. Way off. Something as simple as vibration from your fan could be doing some nasty stuff to your airflow.

Better yet. Let's go back a few steps and just end this. You're right, I'm wrong. I'll just let this go. I'm assuming you'll want the last word, so please include a retraction that I "made stuff up". I didn't.

John Swanson

Scienceiscool, I applaud you for keeping ‘your cool’ with acoggan. You are interesting, factual and deal with unwarranted, petty and overly critical responses better than most would.

As for aCoggan…I looked the guy up (since he selected a forum name that was unique to him) and found that he appears to be a leader in his field. A real PhD, and FACSM (fellow of the Am. Coll of Sports Medicine), but possibly not a real MD (http://certification.acsm.org/).

I was shocked by these facts. As someone who is a leader in their field who wants us, anonymous posters, to know who he is, he might want to take a little more time and gentle caution when responding. Since we don’t have his superior knowledge and ability to do full-time work in physiology, wouldn’t you think he would be less stern and try to nurture us a bit? Actually acoggan is abrasive and quite condescending…”next time don’t bring a knife to a gun fight”. This sounds a lot like Lancey.

This is very unbecoming of an elite academic who has been brazened with the Sports Science Award by USA cycling (was LA on that USA Cycling board? His pals sure were...any connection there? http://dimspace.co.uk/la/ArmstrongBusinessConnections1707.pdf)

Anyway, Scienceiscool just stop responding to him. The rest of us will listen to you. Besides there are innumerable other human metabolism physiologists in here. Try the more appropriate forum site for technical aspects in "TECH".

Back on topic, Lance was fat, his VO2Max is just above average and he has been a doper since his teen years, so all results from studies where he was a subject are worthless.

NW

 

[Jeremiah]

Given the somewhat odd circumstance surrounding the phone call and the level of enthusiasm exhibited by the caller, I got the impression that it was definitely "game on" initially, at least in the eyes of those around Armstrong.

All the hallmarks of the Pharmstrong house of cards...

The bolded can pretty much account for fooling a large number of people.

 

[acoggan]

As for aCoggan…I looked the guy up (since he selected a forum name that was unique to him) and found that he appears to be a leader in his field. A real PhD, and FACSM (fellow of the Am. Coll of Sports Medicine), but possibly not a real MD (http://certification.acsm.org/).

I was shocked by these facts.

You shouldn't be.

EDIT: If you want know more about me, my CV can be found here:

http://wustl.academia.edu/AndrewRCoggan/CurriculumVitae

(Although what you won't find on it are entries such as this:

"2002 - present Scientific/technical consultant for a select number of elite cyclists, triathletes, and/or their coaches. Collectively, these athletes have won more than two dozen U.S. National Championships, five Pan American Championships, six World Championships, and four Olympic medals, and have set two World Records.")

the Sports Science Award by USA cycling (was LA on that USA Cycling board? His pals sure were...any connection there? http://dimspace.co.uk/la/ArmstrongBusinessConnections1707.pdf)

It was Sam Callan, the former Director of Coaching Education for USA Cycling, who was kind enough to nominate me (and also for the USOC's Doc Councilman Award, for which I was named one of three - or was it four? - Finalists but did not win). I don't know who actually made the selection, though...it could have been just Sam, or he might have had to, e.g., fly it past Steve Johnson.

 

[Neworld]

Originally Posted by Neworld
t

he Sports Science Award by USA cycling (was LA on that USA Cycling board? His pals sure were...any connection there? http://dimspace.co.uk/la/ArmstrongBu...ctions1707.pdf)

It was Sam Callan, the former Director of Coaching Education for USA Cycling, who was kind enough to nominate me (and also for the USOC's Doc Councilman Award, for which I was named one of three - or was it four? - Finalists but did not win). I don't know who actually made the selection, though...it could have been just Sam, or he might have had to, e.g., fly it past Steve Johnson.

Maybe Sam's recommendation was innocent, maybe not. We all know how academia works with comments like..."passed it by his desk"..."talked to him about it in the hall", or "fly it past Steve Johnson (aka Lancey's puppeteer). Sounds dirty and collusional, so it probably is. You, Sam, Steve, Lance, the interplay, the unknown...yikes.

You're losing credibility in here acoggan. Time to go back to the desk and get your master's students to do the heavy lifting for you.

 

[acoggan]

Maybe Sam's recommendation was innocent, maybe not. We all know how academia works with comments like..."passed it by his desk"..."talked to him about it in the hall", or "fly it past Steve Johnson (aka Lancey's puppeteer). Sounds dirty and collusional, so it probably is. You, Sam, Steve, Lance, the interplay, the unknown...yikes.

You're right, a lot of unknowns here...including by me! All I do know is that I appreciated the gesture, as well as the nice plaque they (USA Cycling) gave me.

You're losing credibility in here acoggan. Time to go back to the desk and get your master's students to do the heavy lifting for you.

I don't have any graduate students, and haven't had any since I re-entered the medical school environment 20 y ago.

EDIT: BTW, I took a closer look at that graphic you posted previously. The only person on it that I have ever met is Steve Johnson. I'm not sure he likes me much anymore, though, since I wrote him a somewhat scathing letter after my wife's non-selection to the World's team in 2002 (they sent the woman who had finished 3rd in the pursuit at nationals instead).

EDIT2: Oops, upon review I see Dave Chauner's name listed under "Notes" as being associated with Threshold Sports. I met Chauner once back in the late 1970s when I attended a training camp that he and Jackie Simes put on at T-town. (In fact, it might have been Chauner who congratulated me on winning a 3-up sprint drill by jumping away at the start, then gently chided me for treating it like a short race instead of a drill to practice sprint tactics.)

EDIT3: Come to think of it, it might have been Ochowicz at that same camp who made the joke about eating vegetarians when the world ran out of meet...but at this point, I can't say for certain.

 

[casati]

terrible fasion sense across the board. Lance needs to look out for the fasion police too, they'll be knocking his door any minute now

I am jumping in here, I actually stood next him at an event in New York I was working, he is no taller than 5'9" , I am 6 feet and 1/2 and he was at least 3 inches shorter than I.

 

[workingclasshero]

I am jumping in here, I actually stood next him at an event in New York I was working, he is no taller than 5'9" , I am 6 feet and 1/2 and he was at least 3 inches shorter than I.

but what did he wear?

 

[casati]

A dark suit and high heels , no yellow to be seen

 

[Hugh Januss]

Scienceiscool, I applaud you for keeping ‘your cool’ with acoggan. You are interesting, factual and deal with unwarranted, petty and overly critical responses better than most would.

As for aCoggan…I looked the guy up (since he selected a forum name that was unique to him) and found that he appears to be a leader in his field. A real PhD, and FACSM (fellow of the Am. Coll of Sports Medicine), but possibly not a real MD (http://certification.acsm.org/).

I was shocked by these facts. As someone who is a leader in their field who wants us, anonymous posters, to know who he is, he might want to take a little more time and gentle caution when responding. Since we don’t have his superior knowledge and ability to do full-time work in physiology, wouldn’t you think he would be less stern and try to nurture us a bit? Actually acoggan is abrasive and quite condescending…”next time don’t bring a knife to a gun fight”. This sounds a lot like Lancey.

This is very unbecoming of an elite academic who has been brazened with the Sports Science Award by USA cycling (was LA on that USA Cycling board? His pals sure were...any connection there? http://dimspace.co.uk/la/ArmstrongBusinessConnections1707.pdf)

Anyway, Scienceiscool just stop responding to him. The rest of us will listen to you. Besides there are innumerable other human metabolism physiologists in here. Try the more appropriate forum site for technical aspects in "TECH".

Back on topic, Lance was fat, his VO2Max is just above average and he has been a doper since his teen years, so all results from studies where he was a subject are worthless.

NW

As someone who, TBH knows next to nothing about the technical aspects of their discussion I would just say that the whole exchange seemed to be two guys both trying to win the interwebs.
That being said, if I were scoring the fight, I'd give it to Swanson, majority decision.

 

[Jeremiah]

As someone who, TBH knows next to nothing about the technical aspects of their discussion I would just say that the whole exchange seemed to be two guys both trying to win the interwebs.
That being said, if I were scoring the fight, I'd give it to Swanson, majority decision.

You don't subscribe to the acoggan "agenda?"

 

[Jeremiah]

Bolded...

You're right, a lot of unknowns here...including by me! All I do know is that I appreciated the gesture, as well as the nice plaque they (USA Cycling) gave me.



I don't have any graduate students, and haven't had any since I re-entered the medical school environment 20 y ago.

EDIT: BTW, I took a closer look at that graphic you posted previously. The only person on it that I have ever met is Steve Johnson. I'm not sure he likes me much anymore, though, since I wrote him a somewhat scathing letter after my wife's non-selection to the World's team in 2002 (they sent the woman who had finished 3rd in the pursuit at nationals instead).

EDIT2: Oops, upon review I see Dave Chauner's name listed under "Notes" as being associated with Threshold Sports. I met Chauner once back in the late 1970s when I attended a training camp that he and Jackie Simes put on at T-town. (In fact, it might have been Chauner who congratulated me on winning a 3-up sprint drill by jumping away at the start, then gently chided me for treating it like a short race instead of a drill to practice sprint tactics.)

EDIT3: Come to think of it, it might have been Ochowicz at that same camp who made the joke about eating vegetarians when the world ran out of meet...but at this point, I can't say for certain.

When did the grammar become "at Nationals" rather than, "at the Nationals?"

Do you have an eastern European background? This phraseology has been annoying for quite some time since I noticed it became popular amongst prepubescent female figure skaters and gymnasts.

Any help would be appreciated..

 

[irongrl]

You don't subscribe to the acoggan "agenda?"

I'll probably regret asking, but what is the agenda?