Coyle's new stance on Lance

[CoachFergie]

I know. He was saying the same things back in 2009! Doesn't matter what kind of junk science I publish, if it is accepted and published then I'm off the hook and not responsible for the awful methodology and inappropriate conclusions.

Hmmmm, in the power meter thread in the fitness section you were defending the paper of Swart because it was published. It is clearly a piece of junk science because the data doesn't support the conclusions drawn.

I support Andy's contention that Coyle is now presenting new information that alters his conclusions. It doesn't change the data he recorded but adds a new explanation to the changes in performance.

There doesn't appear to be data supporting the EPO use directly affecting efficiency but if the drug use improved the training load Lance could sustain and recovery between sessions then that is where the improvements came from.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

There doesn't appear to be data supporting the EPO use directly affecting efficiency but if the drug use improved the training load Lance could sustain and recovery between sessions then that is where the improvements came from.

Weren't you suggesting that unless someone published data on SFR training effectiveness it was worthless?

Now Coggan has posted a snippet of Brad's latest biography where he details doing 50rpm climbing intervals and how that helped improve his TT strength (@ 97rpm).

Oh what a convoluted mess this scientific publishing business can leave.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Hmmmm, in the power meter thread in the fitness section you were defending the paper of Swart because it was published. It is clearly a piece of junk science because the data doesn't support the conclusions drawn.

I support Andy's contention that Coyle is now presenting new information that alters his conclusions. It doesn't change the data he recorded but adds a new explanation to the changes in performance.

There doesn't appear to be data supporting the EPO use directly affecting efficiency but if the drug use improved the training load Lance could sustain and recovery between sessions then that is where the improvements came from.

Yea, like we said, junk science...

 

[Dear Wiggo]

The data Coyle recorded?

Man if you and Coggan aren't friends you should be.

The data is either gone (lost), or was self-reported by a sociopathic doper. There is no "data", it's make believe.

 

[sittingbison]

...It doesn't change the data he recorded but adds a new explanation to the changes in performance...

oops

 

[DirtyWorks]

There doesn't appear to be data supporting the EPO use directly affecting efficiency

Except you don't know what he was using, you don't know where he was in whatever cycle he was on. Therefore there's no confidence in the measurements.

If Coyle had taken the easy way out and blamed Wonderboy for tricking him, then at least there would be some acknowledgement of the worthlessness of the first paper. But he doubled down on being a sycophant and added more pretending.

 

[blackcat]

Except you don't know what he was using, you don't know where he was in whatever cycle he was on. Therefore there's no confidence in the measurements.

If Coyle had taken the easy way out and blamed Wonderboy for tricking him, then at least there would be some acknowledgement of the worthlessness of the first paper. But he doubled down on being a sycophant and added more pretending.

double
doui
doun
doud

 

[acoggan]

Yes, dozens of articles. Coyle's nonsense was featured in dozens of articles in main stream media that helped push the myth that Armstrong was some freak of nature when he was really a pharmacological invention.

How many of those articles did Coyle write?

 

[acoggan]

If Coyle had taken the easy way out and blamed Wonderboy for tricking him, then at least there would be some acknowledgement of the worthlessness of the first paper. But he doubled down on being a sycophant and added more pretending.

??

I think he just stated the obvious.

 

[acoggan]

No Evidence that anything he wrote was incorrect ?

As I corrected myself, there is no evidence that any of the DATA are incorrect.

Maybe the bits he just made up would be a good place to start.

So tell me, what numbers in the paper do you think Coyle made up, and what evidence do you have that he did so?

 

[acoggan]

I thought the myth was the improved efficiency of rider X after losing weight after cancer? Weightloss but still the same watts. You know.

That's the Armstrong myth. The Coyle myth of this forum is that he (Coyle) manufactured data as a "cover" for Armstrong.

 

[acoggan]

The paper was written after Lance Armstrong sued SCA for the bonus money

The paper might have been submitted after that, but the data were first presented before that (as has been discussed here before - see the thread started by Kreb's Cycle). But hey, let's not let the facts get in the way of any myths...

 

[acoggan]

The data Coyle recorded?

Yup. Armstrong's self-reported body mass falls/fell into the same category as survey or questionnaire results in the social sciences, or the sorts of information that is routinely recorded into medical charts (e.g., severity or date of onset of symptoms, date of initial diagnosis) and then used in other biomedical research. The "soft" nature of these numbers is undoubtedly partially why the Discussion of the paper focuses almost entirely on the changes in efficiency, which were directly measured.

 

[acoggan]

According to acoggan, you need to blame everything on Coyle's editors and reviewers. All of it is their fault.

In terms of the scientific process, yes. Authors will always be tempted to overinterpret their results, to make their findings look better, more important, and/or to present a particular point-of-view...it is up to the reviewers and editors to restrain this tendency.

Note: I highly suggest that anyone following this thread do a little reading on the evolution of the modern scientific paper, and the role it played in shaping science as it went from a "private" to a "public" enterprise.

 

[sittingbison]

sorry acoggan, this entire debacle has got beyond a joke...the debacle of Coyles infamous paper and your various defences of it and him.

Lance told Coyle a pack of lies which he believed without verification, and have a direct relationship to various formulae (ie weight and height), various statements such as enlarged heart causing an aerodynamic hump and Lance being genetically perfect etc are ludicrous in the extreme, every bit of measured information was that of one of the greatest doping cheats in history using a veritable cocktail of performance enhancing drugs, and Coyle lost the data.

Once again for your benefit acoggan, note the drugs are called PERFORMANCE ENHANCING. No matter how much you try to slither and slide, the whole sorry mess is flawed in every detail, and NO conclusions should be drawn from it. The main flaw being the test subject WAS NOT HUMAN.

What CAN be drawn from this farce is an understanding of why an increasing number of sports fans are forming extremely uncharitable views of sports scientists and doctors.

What about putting the hand up and saying "I was wrong" but noooooo its using every slimy trick in the book to deflect attention away from complete incompetence. And I am staggered that as a scientist you are taking the position you are on this matter

 

[Dear Wiggo]

It might have been submitted after that, but it was first presented before that. But hey, let's not let the facts get in the way of any myths...

"It" being the paper or the "data"? Coz "it = paper" was not presented. A poster was presented.

If the poster and its presentation is so outstanding and useful, why the need to publish a paper that can be used to defend a doped to the gills professional cyclist?

Why wait so many years (6!) after the original "study" before publishing?

Why publish a study and accept a commission to be an expert witness (effectively an employee) for the single subject of the study in said court case?

The myth is that the study was published for any other reason than to help defend someone who was going to pay the author for their help in a court case worth millions of dollars.

 

[dopingectomy]

The Coyle myth of this forum is that he (Coyle) manufactured data as a "cover" for Armstrong.

Not the data themselves (although doubts exist...) but their interpretation. The double negation used in the conclusion is just a bad litotes to protect his a.s.s. Why not just say "It is likely that the improved gross mechanical efficiency and reduced body weight displayed in the subject of the 2005 paper [...] was somehow influenced by his reported drug use." ?

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

That's the Armstrong myth. The Coyle myth of this forum is that he (Coyle) manufactured data as a "cover" for Armstrong.

Or, Coyle did some tests, looked at previous results of Armstrong and could not explain them and thus 'invented' the efficiency growth myth and build a scientific paper around it? Cause, you have stated it time after time, scientists can not see at the numbers if riders are doped or not.

This one is so funny:

Therefore, one possible mechanism for increased efficiency is
that this individual increased his percentage of type I muscle
fibers during this 7-yr period of study.

All of Armstrongs muscles were gone after the chemo. Well he must have grown complete new ones! All Type I.

''To our knowledge, there
have been no longitudinal studies performed over years on
humans directly testing the hypothesis that type II fibers can be
converted to type I muscle fibers with continued intense endurance training. However, during periods of extreme endurance training of rats, skeletal muscle appears to display conversion of type II to type I fibers ''

And this is called science? His Type I fibres grow from 60% to 80% yet the subject is able to high anaerobic bursts at the end of stages? For kilometres long? Do scientists even watch cycling? The 'inefficient Armstrong' of 1993/1996 was known for these bursts at supposedly 40% type II muscles, yet losing half of those he was able to better that?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-O2_KwWMUg

Compare that to his bursts in the mountainstages in the Tour.


''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.''

Charles Darwin would laugh at this.

The paper might have been submitted after that, but the data were first presented before that (as has been discussed here before - see the thread started by Kreb's Cycle). But hey, let's not let the facts get in the way of any myths...

How long did Coyle do to build these great sentences into a 'peer reviewed' study since the last data is of 1999?

On the other hand, how representative is this study when you do tests in the off season? What would Armstrongs results have looked like when he was on form? A growth of 30% in efficiency? The only tests done in racing season were not complete, where are his results for september 1993? You know, when he won the Worlds? Or would that have messed up the study/cover up? He had a T/E ratio of 9-1 in June of 1993, would that be good for ones efficiency?

Me guesses, when Coyle does it it is called science, his 'efficiency' in september 1993 was already way up due to him switching to EPO after his disastrous debut in the pro peloton in 1992 where he ended up dead last in San Sebastian. It just took him the help of Ferrari to become the beast he was in 1996.

 

[sittingbison]

...Me guesses, when Coyle does it it is called science, his 'efficiency' in september 1993 was already way up due to him switching to EPO after his disastrous debut in the pro peloton in 1992 where he ended up dead last in San Sebastian. It just took him the help of Ferrari to become the beast he was in 1996.

no no no FGL you are not factoring in Tylers 1000 days hypothesis. He obviously started "preparing" with Ferrari in late 1995 after that disastrous 1992 debut and SS

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

no no no FGL you are not factoring in Tylers 1000 days hypothesis. He obviously started "preparing" with Ferrari in late 1995 after that disastrous 1992 debut and SS

Didnt he enter the cycling scene around 1989? That would make a nice 1000 days wouldnt it? Too bad his T/E results from 1990 till 1993 are missing...

Me guesses he never had his 1000 days.

Coyle's paper should be re-edited and recalled as ''How training with Michele Ferrari will improve your efficiency with 18% in the off - season and winning the Tour the France for seven times while gaining weight.''

 

[CoachFergie]

Weren't you suggesting that unless someone published data on SFR training effectiveness it was worthless?

Not sure how that relates to this thread.

If Wiggo said he did it, then he did it. I would like to see the data that allows one to conclude that it did improve his TT ability. Compared to other forms of training.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

In terms of the scientific process, yes. Authors will always be tempted to overinterpret their results, to make their findings look better, more important, and/or to present a particular point-of-view...it is up to the reviewers and editors to restrain this tendency.

Note: I highly suggest that anyone following this thread do a little reading on the evolution of the modern scientific paper, and the role it played in shaping science as it went from a "private" to a "public" enterprise.

It's up to the scientist to produce something other than sh!t. Enlarged hearts and super smooth peddling style accounting for Wonderboy's transformation was a joke to anyone who understood what was going on in the peloton at the time Coyle created his roll of toilet paper. Fortunately, I was among that group.

Coyle liked being next to what he saw as greatness. The fact that someone who was testing and measuring Wonderboy missed the fact that he was a chemical filled bag of lies is a sad commentary on either the methods used by scientists reviewing and editing physiological studies, or an indictment of one individual who created the results he wanted to see and then convinced a bunch of patsies that it was all valid. You can join that first group if you want, but I am in the latter. You've written nothing here that seems to be convincing me or anyone else otherwise.

Wanna bet on whether Coyle has a signed Yellow jersey somewhere?

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Not sure how that relates to this thread.

If Wiggo said he did it, then he did it. I would like to see the data that allows one to conclude that it did improve his TT ability. Compared to other forms of training.

Check all the long TTs from last year. Wiggo was pretty much first in all of them.

 

[acoggan]

"It" being the paper or the "data"? Coz "it = paper" was not presented. A poster was presented.

Our posts must have crossed in the ether - I edited my statement almost immediately, as I realized that the antecedents to the pronouns weren't clear.

Why wait so many years (6!) after the original "study" before publishing?

You'd have to ask Coyle.

Why publish a study and accept a commission to be an expert witness (effectively an employee) for the single subject of the study in said court case?

Why did Ashenden accept a "commission" to be a witness for SCA?

 

[acoggan]

Or, Coyle did some tests, looked at previous results of Armstrong and could not explain them and thus 'invented' the efficiency growth myth and build a scientific paper around it?

Apparently you are unaware that Coyle had previously published several studies supporting the conclusion that efficiency improves with training, presumably as a result of an increase in type I fiber percentage. The Discussion of the Armstrong paper is entirely consistent with these prior studies.

how representative is this study when you do tests in the off season?

As has been discussed many times before, one of the primary limitations of the study is that it was based on a sample of convenience.