Dutch TV's "Fat idiot" Mart Smeets and the Ultimate Lance fairy tale

[Digger]

As I have said many times before, at this point I can't say whether I would have recommended acceptance of Ed's paper on Armstrong. OTOH, after it was published nothing has ever been unearthed to convince me it should be withdrawn.



Be my guest.

The obnoxious Mr Coggan makes his hourly appearance, as if you are untouchable. As pointed out to you, most people who are this obnoxious, also hide a deep insecurity. Andy, were you not loved enough?

 

[acoggan]

'literally goes hungrier' was the line.
By the way, that's not speculation, that's lies.

Now you are the one who is speculating. That is, how do you know for a fact that what Coyle stated wssn't, in reality, true?

 

[acoggan]

The obnoxious Mr Coggan makes his hourly appearance, as if you are untouchable. As pointed out to you, most people who are this obnoxious, also hide a deep insecurity. Andy, were you not loved enough?

Rule #4 of debating: you know that you are winning when your opponent resorts to ad hominem attacks.

Anyway, I find it rather ironic that you accuse me of being insecure, whereas others accuse me of being arrogant...it seems to me that those are polar opposites.

 

[Digger]

Now you are the one who is speculating. That is, how do you know for a fact that what Coyle stated wssn't, in reality, true?

Lol that's the most obtuse rationale I've ever seen. All you're willing to go as far as, is to accept that he was speculating?!!!! When someone makes a claim in court, with no evidence to back it up, none whatsoever. That is lies. Now you can dress it up in whatever twisted logic you want, but the guy lied on the stand and you know it full well.

 

[Digger]

Rule #4 of debating: you know that you are winning when your opponent resorts to ad hominem attacks.

Anyway, I find it rather ironic that you accuse me of being insecure, whereas others accuse me of being arrogant...it seems to me that those are polar opposites.

Winning , you are conceding ground on every second post!!!

And ad hominem...I feel it relevant to point out how arrogant you are on this forum to many users, because to me if merely takes away from your points.

Next, if you read my comment carefully you would see that I was saying this arrogance is often a cover up for insecurity.

 

[python]

snip....
I find it rather ironic that you accuse me of being insecure, whereas others accuse me of being arrogant...it seems to me that those are polar opposites.

don't know if you fit the bill but 'those' are neither polar opposites nor mutually exclusive.

psychology aside, there is little knew or unexpected in your characterizations of ed coyle's defense of armstrong. ed's flaws and inconsistencies, regardless of how one serves them, are obvious and have been exposed too many times.

 

[Race Radio]

2. I don't know to what specific "wattage breakthroughs" you are referring, but if you are an endurance athlete, EPO is a highly effective drug (although of course people relied upon blood doping before that).

Please share with us any evidence that riders were using blood doping in GT's prior to EPO

 

[Race Radio]

Sorry, I meant those outside the field of exercise physiology. IOW, it's a small world, people talk behind closed doors, etc., so I know what many of my peers think. Unless you're part of that world, though, it is hard to really judge the situation.

And in that small world Coyle was routinely ridiculed for his Armstrong study.

 

[Race Radio]

Well, that depends on how you define "questionable", now doesn't it?

(Of course, there's also the issue of crudely estimated vs. directly measured power output, but that is a somewhat different question.)

That figure is not from a estimate but from Armstrong's own SRM. It has been claimed by Armstrong, Charmichel and Ferrari multiple times.

 

[jimmypop]

Be my guest.

No, thanks. I took a look at other posts you've left as you've made your rounds across the 'net. Coyle may be a great guy and lovely colleague, but that study is indefensible. If that's the result of rigorous peer review in your field, then the blame should be shared.

You do a disservice to the soft sciences in general by defending the study. At least it allows for some humor as you employ egregious logical fallacies in his defense.

Trained experts are human, and like all humans are inevitably limited by their innate cognitive skills. What we're witnessing here is a professional who is twisting logic to arrive at a predetermined conclusion made based on emotion. Waxed with conceit, the veneer of education and training slides off easily.

 

[Darryl Webster]

No, thanks. I took a look at other posts you've left as you've made your rounds across the 'net. Coyle may be a great guy and lovely colleague, but that study is indefensible. If that's the result of rigorous peer review in your field, then the blame should be shared.

You do a disservice to the soft sciences in general by defending the study. At least it allows for some humor as you employ egregious logical fallacies in his defense.

Trained experts are human, and like all humans are inevitably limited by their innate cognitive skills. What we're witnessing here is a professional who is twisting logic to arrive at a predetermined conclusion made based on emotion. Waxed with conceit, the veneer of education and training slides off easily.

Ouch..thats gotta hurt!...well it would a mere mortal as apposed to an aloof observer.
Integrity means coming of that fence that careful crafted obtusiness and hiding behind "correct" speek keeps you on Andy.
Simple question, in your capacity as a human being with the capacity for logical understanding if asked to give ya "best guess" on the evidence in the public domain regards "did Lance dope?"
Yes, Most Likely, Possibly, Doubtfull or No, I dont think so?
That cant be to hard now can it?

 

[acoggan]

Lol that's the most obtuse rationale I've ever seen. All you're willing to go as far as, is to accept that he was speculating?!!!! When someone makes a claim in court, with no evidence to back it up, none whatsoever. That is lies. Now you can dress it up in whatever twisted logic you want, but the guy lied on the stand and you know it full well.

Actually, I don't know that, because I don't know that Coyle's speculation was incorrect. All I know is that when asked what he thought was responsible for Armstrong's success, he offered the opinion that it was due to (in essence) being more obsessed with winning, thus providing the impetus to, e.g., carefully diet.

 

[acoggan]

And in that small world Coyle was routinely ridiculed for his Armstrong study.

You're talking about Coyle - I'm talking about the paper itself.

 

[acoggan]

Please share with us any evidence that riders were using blood doping in GT's prior to EPO

I said "endurance athletes", not "cyclists in Grand Tours"...and as I am sure you know, blood doping was practiced by cyclists (e.g., many members of the 1984 US Olympic team) as well as endurance athletes in other sports (e.g., distance running) well before EPO came along.

 

[acoggan]

No, thanks. I took a look at other posts you've left as you've made your rounds across the 'net. Coyle may be a great guy and lovely colleague, but that study is indefensible. If that's the result of rigorous peer review in your field, then the blame should be shared.

You do a disservice to the soft sciences in general by defending the study. At least it allows for some humor as you employ egregious logical fallacies in his defense.

Trained experts are human, and like all humans are inevitably limited by their innate cognitive skills. What we're witnessing here is a professional who is twisting logic to arrive at a predetermined conclusion made based on emotion. Waxed with conceit, the veneer of education and training slides off easily.

Another ad hominem attack...

 

[acoggan]

Simple question, in your capacity as a human being with the capacity for logical understanding if asked to give ya "best guess" on the evidence in the public domain regards "did Lance dope?"
Yes, Most Likely, Possibly, Doubtfull or No, I dont think so?

Since I don't know for a fact whether he doped or not, the only answer answer I could truthfully give is "possibly".

 

[Darryl Webster]

Since I don't know for a fact whether he doped or not, the only answer answer I could truthfully give is "possibly".

Yeh...kinda figured that would be your answer.
Hence it`s inclusion.
Dont get splinters sitting on that fence eh?

 

[Hugh Januss]

Since I don't know for a fact whether he doped or not, the only answer answer I could truthfully give is "possibly".

Are you really a scientist and not a politician?