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

[acoggan]

Well golly Jethro, I be a non-scientists so I must be to stupid to conversate with real smart guys.

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.

 

[acoggan]

Can you defend such a statement?

All of my posts are still here for anyone who cares to read them. If you do, you will see that I continually focussed on the facts of how Coyle's paper came to be, the validity, or lack thereof, of various criticisms, etc.

 

[Digger]

Knownig Ed as I do, I would say that he was feeling a bit defensive, what with testifying under oath and all. Me, I would have simply said, "I don't know" (since my opinion re. the question would have been irrelevant to my role as an expert witness).

Lol...he was feeling defensive, so he gives this nonsensical answer which merely adds to the criticisms levelled at him. He literally goes hungrier than his rivals. What kind of man in a science background gives that kind of answer in testimony? Can you not accept how nonsensical it is?

 

[acoggan]

Lol...he was feeling defensive, so he gives this nonsensical answer which merely adds to the criticisms levelled at him. He literally goes hungrier than his rivals. What kind of man in a science background gives that kind of answer in testimony?

The sort of person (personality) that I've always said that I'd want with me in a dark alley, or with whom I'd want to go into war...

An anecdote about Ed, who grew up in Queens, NY and was a slightly-built distance runner:

One time another graduate student borrowed a tent from Ed for a camping trip. I was there when this other student returned it, and commented to Ed that the rip in the tent bag was there when he'd received it. Ed's completely noncholant reply was "Oh, I know - a bear did that." Of course this other student and I were curious, and asked for the full story. It turns out that Ed and his wife had gone camping in bear country out west (he did his PhD in Arizona), and had done all of the proper things, including putting all of their food and cooking supplies in the tent bag and hoisting it up in a tree on a rope. Despite this, they were awakened in the wee hours of the morning by the sounds of a bear pulling down and digging into the bag. The smart thing to do, of course, would probably have been to just lay low and let the bear have his snack. Not Ed, though - he comes out of the tent to confront the bear, grabbing onto the other end of the rope to which the tent bag is attached. This other student and I were somewhat taken aback, and pointed out to Ed that maybe that wasn't the best thing to do, at least given his size, limited outdoor experience, lack of any weapons other than his bare hands, etc. His dead-pan reply was:

"Yeah, I know - but I got my tent bag back."

Can you not accept how nonsensical it is?

Where did I ever say that I agreed with Ed's statement?

 

[Digger]

The sort of person (personality) that I've always said that I'd want with me in a dark alley, or with whom I'd want to go into war...
An anecdote about Ed, who grew up in Queens, NY and was a slightly-built distance runner:

One time another graduate student borrowed a tent from Ed for a camping trip. I was there when this other student returned it, and commented to Ed that the rip in the tent bag was there when he'd received it. Ed's completely noncholant reply was "Oh, I know - a bear did that." Of course this other student and I were curious, and asked for the full story. It turns out that Ed and his wife had gone camping in bear country out west (he did his PhD in Arizona), and had done all of the proper things, including putting all of their food and cooking supplies in the tent bag and hoisting it up in a tree on a rope. Despite this, they were awakened in the wee hours of the morning by the sounds of a bear pulling down and digging into the bag. The smart thing to do, of course, would probably have been to just lay low and let the bear have his snack. Not Ed, though - he comes out of the tent to confront the bear, grabbing onto the other end of the rope to which the tent bag is attached. This other student and I were somewhat taken aback, and pointed out to Ed that maybe that wasn't the best thing to do, at least given his size, limited outdoor experience, lack of any weapons other than his bare hands, etc. His dead-pan reply was:

"Yeah, I know - but I got my tent bag back."



Where did I ever say that I agreed with Ed's statement?

The above merely underlines yet again, your lack of objectivity when it comes to Coyle. Do you accept this? His eccentric behaviour is, in someway meant to impress us, as regards his standing as a scientist?
Also I never said you agreed with the statement, but I am asking you right now, do you think it was unprofessional?

 

[acoggan]

The above merely underlines yet again, your lack of objectivity when it comes to Coyle. Do you accept this?

Meaning, did I believe his story? As a matter of fact, yes...that is, I saw (see) no reason not to believe him.

His eccentric behaviour is, in someway meant to impress us, as regards his standing as a scientist?

I would not call what he did "eccentric", merely risky. As for my purpose in relating the anecdote, I was trying to convey some idea of Ed's personality. That is, like any normal person he can become aggressive when he feels challenged or threatened*, and I assume that is how he was feeling when asked that question in the SCA trial.

*No. 3 rule of debating: never lose your cool.

Also I never said you agreed with the statement, but I am asking you right now, do you think it was unprofessional?

"Unprofessional"? Hardly. Ill-considered, perhaps...but then again it was a rather silly question for the attorney to ask Ed in the first place (since it clearly went to opinion, not facts/data/science about which an expert would testify).

 

[pmcg76]

Meaning, did I believe his story? As a matter of fact, yes...that is, I saw (see) no reason not to believe him.



I would not call what he did "eccentric", merely risky. As for my purpose in relating the anecdote, I was trying to convey some idea of Ed's personality. That is, like any normal person he can become aggressive when he feels challenged or threatened*, and I assume that is how he was feeling when asked that question in the SCA trial.

*No. 3 rule of debating: never lose your cool.



"Unprofessional"? Hardly. Ill-considered, perhaps...but then again it was a rather silly question for the attorney to ask Ed in the first place (since it clearly went to opinion, not facts/data/science about which an expert would testify).

Not read back through this thread but to say unprofessional and ill-considered are not the same thing is stretching credibility.

If a pro footballer goes out and gets hammered the night before a game and then cannot perform at his best level. It would be said that was a ill-considered decision but it would also be very unprofessional. I dont see how you can seperate those statements.

 

[acoggan]

The above merely underlines yet again, your lack of objectivity when it comes to Coyle.

Sorry, I missed that you had bolded my very first statement...anyway, my point is simply that I have some understanding of what makes Ed tic, as you might expect given that I worked with him almost daily for over 3 y. Based on that, he is, as I said, not someone I would expect to back down in a fight, and therefore someone I would want on my side in any confrontation. (OTOH, he isn't the sort of cool-as-a-cucumber personality that, if I were an attorney, I could put on a witness stand w/o having the slightest worry that they would become rattled...that would be me. )

 

[acoggan]

Not read back through this thread but to say unprofessional and ill-considered are not the same thing is stretching credibility.

If a pro footballer goes out and gets hammered the night before a game and then cannot perform at his best level. It would be said that was a ill-considered decision but it would also be very unprofessional. I dont see how you can seperate those statements.

Your point is well-taken, but then again I think you also have to recognize that scientists have emotions too (well, most of them ), and that when testifying on a witness stand (or orally debating in any forum) you have only seconds to formulate your answer to any question. As such, I don't think Ed sharing his opinion in response to a somewhat off-the-wall question qualifies as "unprofessional"...heck, you can't really even say that it was "ill-considered" if it what he truly believes.

 

[BotanyBay]

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.

Maybe you and Arnie Baker can get together and create a PPT deck medically explaining all of the miracles of the past 12 years. Let me guess: New training and nutrition breakthroughs?

 

[acoggan]

Maybe you and Arnie Baker can get together and create a PPT deck medically explaining all of the miracles of the past 12 years. Let me guess: New training and nutrition breakthroughs?

??

What does Arnie Baker's defense of Floyd Landis have to do with how most of the scientific community seems to view Coyle's paper?

 

[BotanyBay]

??

What does Arnie Baker's defense of Floyd Landis have to do with how most of the scientific community seems to view Coyle's paper?

Forget Floyd. Baker merely trained a naturally gifted rider, right? That means he's a top expert in modern training techniques that would explain all of the modern miracles we've witnessed. I'd like for you and he to get together and explain the wattage breakthroughs for us lead bars.

 

[Digger]

Meaning, did I believe his story? As a matter of fact, yes...that is, I saw (see) no reason not to believe him.



I would not call what he did "eccentric", merely risky. As for my purpose in relating the anecdote, I was trying to convey some idea of Ed's personality. That is, like any normal person he can become aggressive when he feels challenged or threatened*, and I assume that is how he was feeling when asked that question in the SCA trial.

*No. 3 rule of debating: never lose your cool.



"Unprofessional"? Hardly. Ill-considered, perhaps...but then again it was a rather silly question for the attorney to ask Ed in the first place (since it clearly went to opinion, not facts/data/science about which an expert would testify).

My point is that you obviously have this relationship with the guy that goes beyond academia, and you are not the most objective person to evaluate it his work. And you're definitely not going to slate it on an internet forum, even if you do privately believe his work to be somewhat questionable.
So now we are saying the attorney is partly to blame for Ed saying Lance literally goes hungrier than his rivals. So not unprofessional you say. You are saying Ed gets defensive, that the attorney was partly to blame. But not one person put those words into his mouth and you know full well that Ed was answering questions to back up his paper - and he turned to this nonsensical crap when backed into the corner you speak about. Ed is the science guy, why not answer whht facts? Has Ed checked out the hunger level of each TDF cyclist? He could have answered with facts and science and he was the guy left clutching at straws with an answer which he knew full well was complete and utter bulls&&&. And further up you said you personally would have sidetracked such a question. There to me shows exactly the type of person you are, because you have been doing that all day.

 

[jimmypop]

It sucks to run into a better debater, eh?

TL;DR on my part. But, are you defending Coyle's work?

If so, we should probably be questioning your credentials as well.

 

[Digger]

TL;DR on my part. But, are you defending Coyle's work?

If so, we should probably be questioning your credentials as well.

Oh believe me he is.

 

[acoggan]

Forget Floyd. Baker merely trained a naturally gifted rider, right? That means he's a top expert in modern training techniques that would explain all of the modern miracles we've witnessed. I'd like for you and he to get together and explain the wattage breakthroughs for us lead bars.

1. Wouldn't Allen Lim be more appropriately termed Landis' trainer?

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).

 

[Digger]

1. Wouldn't Allen Lim be more appropriately termed Landis' trainer?

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)

Percentage increase in wattage would you say it leads to?

 

[acoggan]

My point is that you obviously have this relationship with the guy that goes beyond academia, and you are not the most objective person to evaluate it his work.

Perhaps, but at least in this thread, I haven't been "evaluating his work" - I've merely relayed what others seem to think of it.

And you're definitely not going to slate it on an internet forum, even if you do privately believe his work to be somewhat questionable.

Actually, there is no difference between what I've said here and what I've said privately to others (e.g., Dave Martin).

So now we are saying the attorney is partly to blame for Ed saying Lance literally goes hungrier than his rivals. So not unprofessional you say. You are saying Ed gets defensive, that the attorney was partly to blame. But not one person put those words into his mouth and you know full well that Ed was answering questions to back up his paper - and he turned to this nonsensical crap when backed into the corner you speak about. Ed is the science guy, why not answer whht facts? Has Ed checked out the hunger level of each TDF cyclist? He could have answered with facts and science and he was the guy left clutching at straws with an answer which he knew full well was complete and utter bulls&&&.

So take it up with Ed, not me. All I have done is try to provide some insight into why Ed apparently said what he did.

further up you said you personally would have sidetracked such a question. There to me shows exactly the type of person you are, because you have been doing that all day.

Well of course I would have declined to speculate on how Armstrong defeated his rivals if I'd been an expert witness in the SCA trial...expert witnesses are supposed to provide testimony that goes beyond mere speculation.

 

[acoggan]

Percentage increase in wattage would you say it leads to?

As I have said many times before: roughly half of the percentage increase in hematocrit*.

*In relative, not absolute terms - IOW, going from 40% to 50% is a 20% increase.

 

[Digger]

Perhaps, but at least in this thread, I haven't been "evaluating his work" - I've merely relayed what others seem to think of it.



Actually, there is no difference between what I've said here and what I've said privately to others (e.g., Dave Martin).



So take it up with Ed, not me. All I have done is try to provide some insight into why Ed apparently said what he did.


Well of course I would have declined to speculate on how Armstrong defeated his rivals if I'd been an expert witness in the SCA trial...expert witnesses are supposed to provide testimony that goes beyond mere speculation.

And would you accept that Coyle speculated or indeed simply made stuff up?


Note: I never once asked you why he said it. However I repeatedly asked your opinion on him saying it. And your previous defense of same was farcical and again shows your lack of objectivity towards all matters Coyle. Partly blaming the attorney, i mean seriously, are you mental?

 

[Digger]

As I have said many times before: roughly half of the percentage increase in hematocrit*.

*In relative, not absolute terms - IOW, going from 40% to 50% is a 20% increase.

Which contradicts Coyle's claims by the way....just so you know.

 

[acoggan]

TL;DR on my part. But, are you defending Coyle's work?

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.

If so, we should probably be questioning your credentials as well.

Be my guest.

 

[acoggan]

And would you accept that Coyle speculated or indeed simply made stuff up?

He certainly speculated when he claimed that Armstrong dieted more rigorously than his rivals.

 

[Digger]

He certainly speculated when he claimed that Armstrong dieted more rigorously than his rivals.

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

 

[acoggan]

Which contradicts Coyle's claims by the way....just so you know.

Yeah, I seem to recall he was quoted as scoffing at the effectiveness of EPO. Do you know exactly what he said?

Anyway, if that is true then it certainly wouldn't be the first time we've disagreed on matters of verifiable fact...then again, I also disagree with the assertions of Dave Martin et al. that efficiency is essentially unchangable (and can marshall plenty of references to prove it).