Coyle's new stance on Lance

[Jack (6 ch)]

It would be most enjoyable to share an aperitivo with Michele. Although I’m sure he’d frown upon the consumption of Processo, prosciutto and fatty cheeses.

Prosecco, prosciutto and fatty cheeses are not dangerous. Only the quantity is dangerous....

 

[Cloxxki]

Random thought.
The starting podiums of TT's should be weighing bridges. As should the presentation podium be (without bike).

 

[acoggan]

How would we know? You posted the link to an article that costs $20 to read and are now selectively quoting it out of context. You might be good at this science thingamabob, but your rhetorical skillz are a bit weak, right?

You seem confused: I haven't quoted from Coyle's letter (which will be freely available once it's published).

 

[ChewbaccaD]

You mean where he wrote:

"Given this individual's reduction in body weight from 78.9 kg (in 1992) to ∼72 kg during his victories in the Tour de France..."

and

"Laboratory measures of the subject in our study were not made soon after the Tour de France; however...given his reported body weight of 72 kg..."

?

You seem confused: I haven't quoted from Coyle's letter (which will be freely available once it's published).

I'm confused because you don't seem to understand how to cite sources.

 

[acoggan]

Armstrong weight loss is mentioned often in Coyle's study. One of his key findings was an 18% increase in power to weight. This data point was repeated over and over as a talking point in Armstrong's media campaign.

The fact is Coyle never measured any weight loss in Armstrong, it was an invention.

If so, the 'invention' was by Armstrong, not Coyle.

IOW, if you have a problem with the use of self-reported body mass, you need to take it up with the reviewers/editors, not w/ the author.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

...by Armstrong, not Coyle.

IOW, if you have a problem with the use of self-reported body mass, you need to take it up with the reviewers/editors, not w/ the author.

So in scientific papers, the responsibility for verifying facts you use to prove your point/s is on your reviewers and editors? That's pretty p!ss poor research IMO. I wouldn't dare use the unverified information from my subject of study as a basis for anything. There is a pretty big problem there. Like a hole the size of Aurora Snow.

 

[acoggan]

Asker worked with Rabo. Did he conclude any of their guys were doping?

Someone once asked Asker about doping in front of me...he replied something along the lines that while he worked with the team and traveled w/ them during mountain stages (the most stressful part of the race, requiring the most support people, presumably), he was not privvy to what went on when the doctor(s) were with the riders (and sort of implied that he knew better than to ask).

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Someone once asked Asker about doping in front of me...he replied something along the lines that while he worked with the team and traveled w/ them during mountain stages (the most stressful part of the race, requiring the most support people, presumably), he was not privvy to what went on when the doctor(s) were with the riders (and sort of implied that he knew better than to ask).

Well that settles it, if I have a problem with you taking the word of someone who worked on a team with a systematic doping program who claims to have neither seen, heard, nor spoken any evil, I guess I will have to take it up with your reviewers and editors...

 

[Dear Wiggo]

So in scientific papers, the responsibility for verifying facts you use to prove your point/s is on your reviewers and editors? That's pretty p!ss poor research IMO. I wouldn't dare use the unverified information from my subject of study as a basis for anything. There is a pretty big problem there. Like a hole the size of Aurora Snow.

Yes.

Have you read the final sentence of the conclusion to the original Coyle paper? I would like to quote it here for you, it is incredibly scientific and rigorous.

Clearly, this champion embodies a phenomenon
of both genetic natural selection and the extreme to which the
human can adapt to endurance training performed for a decade
or more in a person who is truly inspired.

I have never seen the "inspiration measuring device", in fact it's obvious I don't even know what it's called.

Very. Scientific.

 

[acoggan]

So in scientific papers, the responsibility for verifying facts you use to prove your point/s is on your reviewers and editors? That's pretty p!ss poor research IMO. I wouldn't dare use the unverified information from my subject of study as a basis for anything. There is a pretty big problem there. Like a hole the size of Aurora Snow.

Coyle clearly stated that he relied on Armstrong's self-reported race weight, something that he obviously couldn't verify (since he only tested Armstrong out-of-season). It was therefore left up to the reviewers and editors to determine whether this was acceptable (and yes, part of the responsibility of reviewers and editors is to fact-check authors). Obviously they didn't have the same problem with it that many here do (undoubtedly because the real issue was efficiency).

 

[acoggan]

I'm confused because you don't seem to understand how to cite sources.

It should be patently obvious that I was quoting from Coyle's original paper, as I was responding to RaceRadio who had posted one of the tables from it.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Lets make sure we frame this correctly, because there is some base truth that is being buried under a mound of bullsh!t. Mr. Coyle's measurements and observations were incredibly inept because the performance of a guy he studied, who was doped up like a dude who decided to forego the Methadone and spike with the real stuff, was attributed to an enlarged heart and a smooth peddling style. A guy who was measuring and testing and prodding and weighing and stressing a subject who missed the fact that his subject was filled to the rim with doping products is a guy who I think we can all agree might not be that great at his job.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

It should be patently obvious that I was quoting from Coyle's original paper, as I was responding to RaceRadio who had posted one of the tables from it.

Yea, citation doesn't work that way in the real grown-up world.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Coyle clearly stated that he relied on Armstrong's self-reported race weight, something that he obviously couldn't verify (since he only tested Armstrong out-of-season). It was therefore left up to the reviewers and editors to determine whether this was acceptable (and yes, part of the responsibility of reviewers and editors is to fact-check authors). Obviously they didn't have the same problem with it that many here do (undoubtedly because the real issue was efficiency).

Thanks for explaining why anything Coyle wrote should be regarded as having the usefulness of used toilet paper. If it was so inconsequential, the hit to credibility for using unverified information means Coyle should have left the information out...unless it isn't nearly as inconsequential as you are intimating now...

 

[ChewbaccaD]

 

[ChewbaccaD]

http://cdn.hark.com/swfs/player_32x32.swf?pid=kymhdpmdnr

 

[ChewbaccaD]

<object width="32" height="32" class="hark_player">
<param name="movie" value="http://cdn.hark.com/swfs/player_32x32.swf?pid=kymhdpmdnr"/>

 

[ChewbaccaD]

<object width="32" height="32" class="hark_player"> <param name="movie" value="http://cdn.hark.com/swfs/player_32x32.swf?pid=kymhdpmdnr"/>

 

[Jeremiah]

Thanks for explaining why anything Coyle wrote should be regarded as having the usefulness of used toilet paper. If it was so inconsequential, the hit to credibility for using unverified information means Coyle should have left the information out...unless it isn't nearly as inconsequential as you are intimating now...

Give him a break...he's a good friend.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Yes.

Have you read the final sentence of the conclusion to the original Coyle paper? I would like to quote it here for you, it is incredibly scientific and rigorous.



I have never seen the "inspiration measuring device", in fact it's obvious I don't even know what it's called.

Very. Scientific.

I wonder if Lance signed Coyle's cleavage with a Sharpie when they were done?

 

[ScienceIsCool]

Coyle clearly stated that he relied on Armstrong's self-reported race weight, something that he obviously couldn't verify (since he only tested Armstrong out-of-season). It was therefore left up to the reviewers and editors to determine whether this was acceptable (and yes, part of the responsibility of reviewers and editors is to fact-check authors). Obviously they didn't have the same problem with it that many here do (undoubtedly because the real issue was efficiency).

No wonder I can't take you seriously.

Compare that to actual scientists at the LHC. They're latest reporting is all about a Higgs-like particle, even though it's a boson with the mass predicted by the standard model, the correct spin and all the predicted decay products in all the right quantities.

That's right. Even though all the data fits, none of the physicists are saying it *is* the Higgs boson. They're going to make damn sure, first.

Up to the reviewers and editors indeed.

John Swanson

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Give him a break...he's a good friend.

He's an apologist who is trying to spin bullsh!t into silver threads. I'm doing nothing more than pointing out the "patently obvious."

 

[Race Radio]

If so, the 'invention' was by Armstrong, not Coyle.

IOW, if you have a problem with the use of self-reported body mass, you need to take it up with the reviewers/editors, not w/ the author.

Ahhh of course. Coyle uses an unverified, invented, values to support a central part of his conclusion......but it is not his fault, it is the editors. It is the fault of the fools who believed his fraud "Study"......suckers!

 

[Ripper]

Thanks for explaining why anything Coyle wrote should be regarded as having the usefulness of used toilet paper. If it was so inconsequential, the hit to credibility for using unverified information means Coyle should have left the information out...unless it isn't nearly as inconsequential as you are intimating now...

Good one!

BTW, have you finished law school yet?

 

[Ripper]

No wonder I can't take you seriously.

Compare that to actual scientists at the LHC. They're latest reporting is all about a Higgs-like particle, even though it's a boson with the mass predicted by the standard model, the correct spin and all the predicted decay products in all the right quantities.

That's right. Even though all the data fits, none of the physicists are saying it *is* the Higgs boson. They're going to make damn sure, first.

Up to the reviewers and editors indeed.

John Swanson

OK, I don't understand all the geeked out physics stuff, but I agree with your point!