Ed Coyle's paper about LA delta efficiency is a fraud.

[acoggan]

<slow clap>

Thank you for that edifying contribution.

 

[dienekes88]

My problem with it, and I'm not saying this is your fault, is that it has been used too much by the Lance camp as a defense that he has not doped. Coyle himself was used in the SCA trial in this defense. Journalists, in their defense of Lance, are citing the paper. And imo, this is not right. The criticisms of the paper aren't as well known as they should be.

You mean to tell me... that people - especially the media - are misusing science?! I never thought that would be possible!!!

I think everyone is getting hung up on one example of this. There are far worse and far bigger examples of it. *cough* supposed MMR Vaccine-Autism link published in the Lancet (now retracted by most of the authors) *cough*

 

[Digger]

I should hope not, since the only way it could be my fault is if I were one of the original reviewers (which I wasn't).



As I alluded to just a couple of posts above, I think that in the lay world the paper is both unduly criticized and criticized for the wrong reasons. Most (although clearly not all) scientists in the field, OTOH, don't get all that worked up about it, because they realize that only rarely does a single publication really serve to greatly advance a field. The rest are just "bricks in the wall", the importance of which can only be judged over the long haul.

But the paper, and Coyle himself, have been used as a defense against Lance doping, and that's one aspect I strongly disagree with. MA, and your feelings on him are well known, did shed light on the problems of the paper, whether you care to acknowledge the legitimacy of them or not. Coyle and his paper being used in the SCA trial was not right - and this is being kind, as I don;t want to get in trouble with Mods.

 

[Digger]

You mean to tell me... that people - especially the media - are misusing science?! I never thought that would be possible!!!

I think everyone is getting hung up on one example of this. There are far worse and far bigger examples of it. *cough* supposed MMR Vaccine-Autism link published in the Lancet (now retracted by most of the authors) *cough*

Yawn.........

 

[Anonymous]

I should hope not, since the only way it could be my fault is if I were one of the original reviewers (which I wasn't).



As I alluded to just a couple of posts above, I think that in the lay world the paper is both unduly criticized and criticized for the wrong reasons. Most (although clearly not all) scientists in the field, OTOH, don't get all that worked up about it, because they realize that only rarely does a single publication really serve to greatly advance a field. The rest are just "bricks in the wall", the importance of which can only be judged over the long haul.

What you miss is the importance of said "science" to the myth of Mr Armstrong. His whole "I didn't dope" shtick is based upon it, and the holes are very telling. No, he didn't measure the heart, yet people go on and on about its size as though it were the John Holmes of hearts.

Then you come in and think you will dazzle us with your own "science" and background as though having followed the sport and Mr Armstrong's claims for years, we somehow missed EVERY argument you present.

Again, substantiate your claims about the EPO test and specifically the Feb Article by Mr Ashenden with actual scientific rebuttal. And please spare us the 2005 articles as we read them then, and it is 4 years later.

 

[dienekes88]

Yawn.........

Yawn x 2...

 

[lean mean &green]

Personal opinions are always that: personal. The only difference in this case is that I'm more willing than most to state my opinions publically.

by "personal" i meant it is a personal conflict between two individuals (personal dislike), it's not really about scientific acumen pertaining to MA. criticisms are little more than ad hominem attacks.

i've rarely heard anti-doping efforts described as a witch hunt fueled by bad science. if anything, public perception is that doping authorities/controls lack rigor. a growing fear is that governing bodies are impotent or are corrupt because their financial intrerests are not served by doping positives and the bad PR associated with them. the exact opposite pattern from what you've described.

this extremely subversive opinion of yours is what they call a "tell" in the world of poker. you clearly just don't like the guy (MA).

 

[elapid]

Unfortunately for you, I'm not.

OK then, if you want to hash it out again for all to see. Coyle concluded three facts (improved efficiency + weight loss = increased power-to-weight ratio), two of which are blatantly incorrect because both result from the use of a totally unrelated estimated racing weight in 1999 (weight loss and power-to-weight ratio). These may be minor errors to you, but when they dramatically effect the conclusions of the paper then they are major flaws to me and many others on this forum that respect scientific integrity. If Coyle can get this so wrong, then not many of us have faith in his efficiency measurements either.

 

[elapid]

And your last point about non-scientists...patronising and false.

Digger, you should realize this guy thinks we are all just a bunch of plebs. See the other thread where this was hashed out. He even criticized new PhDs because they were new. For me, a classic was that when I showed Jackhammer (yes, THE one and only Jackhammer) Table 2 from Coyle's paper, he said that even a high school math teacher could see that those calculations were blatantly wrong. So much for intellectual superiority when even us common hacks can see BS when it is there for us all to see!

 

[elapid]

Lance was measured in September 1993 and had a VO2Max of 81.2.
In 1999, the year he won, it was 71.5. This does not correlate. Also, you don't see the problems in measuring his VO2 Max at different periods, i.e. fit and unfit. How, as a physiologist can you defend this lack of conistency, and assumption?

Again Digger, this so called scientist sees no problem in using uncorrelated data. Look at the supposed weight loss and 18% improvement in power-to-weight ratio - totally based on an estimated racing weight of 72-74 kg in 1999 (for which Coyle used the lower 72 kg). All other calculations were based on measured preseason weights, despite the fact that the 1999 preseason weight was measured and recorded. Why not use the measured 1999 preseason weight? Why not use estimated racing weights from 1992 and 1993? There is absolutely no consistency, but this is seen as a minor error by Dr. Coggan despite the fact that it directly impacts two of Coyle's conclusions.

 

[ggusta]

See the other thread where this was hashed out.

Link to other thread, please. Tuesday is masochism night.

 

[elapid]

My background in Academia is in Computers and Education. If my supervisors came across some of the 'mistakes', when conducting my field research, (that's kind) that Coyle made, then I would've been out the door. Coyle and his PHD student below are the main people defending this particular paper.

+1. Could not agree more fully. This paper was so full of holes that it should have never been submitted let alone published. Not only Coyle, but also the journal should be embarrassed.

 

[elapid]

As clearly stated in the paper, Coyle relied on Armstrong's self-reported race weight of 72 kg in his calculations. If the numbers Armstrong provided aren't correct (I believe that he testified under oath that he raced the Tour at 73-74 kg), then Coyle's conclusions would also be incorrect. However, you can't blame Coyle in the least for presenting the numbers that he had available to him, especially since he clearly documented their source (i.e., Armstrong himself).

Yes you can blame Coyle 100%. This racing weight is totally irrelevant and has no bearing whatsoever on any other data presented in the paper. If you use a racing weight in 1999, then you need to compare it to racing weights in 1992 and 1993 and not preseason weights. If you are calculating power-to-weight ratios, then you need to use paired powers and weights measured concurrently, not preseason powers and weights in 1992 and 1993 compared to preseason power and estimated racing weight in 1999. Who knows what his steady state power was during the 1999 racing season? If Coyle did, then he could use this power to compare to the estimated body weight (although this is still flawed because it is not a measured weight and he would still have been comparing a racing season result in 1999 to preseason results in 1992 and 1993). Regardless, just a complete embarrassing crock of sh*t that shows a complete lack of understanding of study design and scientific methods.

 

[elapid]

Except for the off-season of 1999, Coyle never weighed Armstrong during his Tour-winning years. Thus, he had no choice but to take Armstrong's word that he weighed 72 kg in-season.

Coyle had every choice: why use this weight at all? There was no other data from the 1999 racing season to compare this estimated weight to and there was no other data from previous racing seasons to compare this estimated racing weight to. The scientifically correct method would have been to compare his preseason weight in 1999 to his preseason weights in 1992 and 1993, and to use his preseason weight in 1999 to calculate his power-to-weight ratio rather than his 1999 estimated racing weight and 1999 preseason power. Coyle had every choice, but by using this estimated racing weight his study design and methods were appalling flawed and at worst he used this estimated racing weight to wilfully fit preformed and erroneous conclusions.

 

[elapid]

Link to other thread, please. Tuesday is masochism night.

Yep - I'm off for an interval session now. Need to work some steam off!

 

[ggusta]

Yep - I'm off for an interval session now. Need to work some steam off!

Seriously, I read this stuff and totally get where you are coming from.

Dr Fiat prescribes six of England's finest. Go for the red triangle. If that doesn't work, I can email you the name of an herbal supplement from Afghanistan.

What is the point of these arguments??????

 

[Eva Maria]

There is no fraud, merely a somewhat flawed paper that has received far more attention than it really deserves.

The goal of Coyle's paper is to provide a smokescreen for a doped athlete. It is a fraud that helps cover up an even larger fraud.

 

[Eva Maria]

I think that in the lay world the paper is both unduly criticized and criticized for the wrong reasons.

You did not seem to have a problem when the "Lay World" embraced Coyle's flawed study and trumpeted it as proof of a clean Armstrong. There were far more articles written based on Coyle's fraud then questioning it.

 

[scribe]

You did not seem to have a problem when the "Lay World" embraced Coyle's flawed study and trumpeted it as proof of a clean Armstrong. There were far more articles written based on Coyle's fraud then questioning it.

You always speak in conspiratorial tones, with little to no proof to back up your claims while overlooking other's to the contrary.
Jes sayin.....

 

[Eva Maria]

You always speak in conspiratorial tones, with little to no proof to back up your claims while overlooking other's to the contrary.
Jes sayin.....

Little or no proof?

Here is a good example of the media coverage of Coyle's paper

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/07/0722_050722_armstrong.html

It was coverage like this that led many otherwise rational people to overlook his doping. The study accomplished it's goal. Few covered the subsistent exposure of Coyle's many flaws.

 

[keen_but_slow]

When I first read Ashenden's interview, I forwarded it on to two very good friends of mine, one a PhD in biophysics, one in experimental particle physics, to see what they made of it. The main comment, which amazed me, was that pretty much however you write it, if a result is "interesting" you can expect a squabble in the letters pages.

The first guy referred me to "Bad Science" by Ben Goldacre and the discussion on homeopathy. It's a great book. I read it and the discussion on homeopathy reminded me a lot of the Lance debate. Believers will point to any study that supports them; non-believers tend to get extremely frustrated at the closed-mindedness of the believers because they only focus on what they want ("it made my mother better" and "he never failed a test") versus the mass of evidence to the contrary ("meta-studies say there's nothing in it, and it shouldn't work based on any mechanism we understand" and "it just isn't plausible that a mediocre classics guy goes to dominating known dopers").

The second guy - and I must be clear here, neither criticised Coyle - said he bets he wishes Coyle had his time again. If he knew he was testing someone that was going to win the Tour 7 years later, and that there would be tests in the future, then he would have done things differently around the controls. I.e. the machines would have been calibrated before each test, several would be done a few days apart, the temperature and humidity in the lab and whether the windows were open or closed would be controlled, the level of hydration and fatigue of the subect, what he ate and drank in the hours before the test etc. He wouldn't have discarded any of the results because they all need to be available when you publish. He said that the results could be classed as "interesting, worthy of further study" but don't really demonstrate anything on their own.

I think, on reflection, that the whole thing is a red herring. Shouldn't have been cited as evidence, author shouldn't be vilified on this forum.

 

[gillan1969]

keen but slow

he was however testing an-ex world champ and classics winner...

I'm a 3rd, nay 4th, rate chump who has undertaken testing in the lab for guys here in Scotland at various Universities and they where pretty meticulous with regards procedure. This included my diet pre- ride and the conditions in the lab. If this was the case for me then why not for an ex-world champ..

this seems to be in line with the way the Iraq war was achieved...basically have a set of pre-determined conclusions and then fit some random (not neccessarily untrue) data to fit with conclusions....and....eh...that's it

45 minutes anyone?

WMD anyone?

 

[keen_but_slow]

Strong point well made.

I guess the question is .... was there a plan at all? Maybe it was just a VO2max test at the time? You're right though - if I got the chance to test a world champion, I'd sure as hell write every variable down!

Either way, it appears pretty sloppy. I'm pretty sure I'd have failed my A-level practical if I'd handed it in.

 

[ggusta]

this seems to be in line with the way the Iraq war was achieved...basically have a set of pre-determined conclusions and then fit some random (not neccessarily untrue) data to fit with conclusions....and....eh...that's it

45 minutes anyone?

WMD anyone?

keep that crap OUT

 

[Anonymous]

Strong point well made.

I guess the question is .... was there a plan at all? Maybe it was just a VO2max test at the time? You're right though - if I got the chance to test a world champion, I'd sure as hell write every variable down!

Either way, it appears pretty sloppy. I'm pretty sure I'd have failed my A-level practical if I'd handed it in.

And the relevance of that is how the data is used by people who need to defend Mr Armstrong from doping allegations. It would be appropriate to disregard the test in any instance. Unfortunately, there are still many apologists who come to forums armed with that study, and therefore it is logical that its refutation continue.