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

[acoggan]

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.

And as I have said before:

1) you can't claim that Coyle's conclusion that Armstrong's power-to-mass increased in season as a result of weight loss is incorrect, because you don't know that Armstrong's self-reported body mass data are incorrect.

2) neither the gross nor the delta efficiency data have been shown to be in error - the only issue there is that Coyle calculated delta efficiency using a different, but nonetheless widely-accepted, method than described in the paper he cited.

 

[Digger]

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?

Excellent point, and this is something i've pointed out previously. I believe Coyle may have gone into the study with good intentions, but along the way, for whatever reason (I have my theory but that's for another day), he formed an idea of what he would like his results to be, because the study was not going to be used simply for its initial intended purpose. And as TFF points out, the study is being used as a reason for Lance not having doped. For God sake, Coyle even testified in the SCA trial about Lance not needing EPO, because of the 18% improvement he had attained. Although Coyle also spoke about EPO only giving a five to six percent improvement in power output.

So on the one hand, we have this going on with Coyle, and then we have Andrew Coggan saying that Michael Ashenden has not done anything constructive in the anti-doping movement. Hypocrisy....

 

[Galic Ho]

Digger has you beaten accoggan. Take a good look at the interview with Michael Ashenden:

http://nyvelocity.com/content/interviews/2009/michael-ashenden

Ed Coyle's article is not only scientifically bogus but if Ashenden is correct he lost the data. The man is a scientific joke and for accoggan to vouch for his paper is ludicrous. I especially liked your personal claims of an enormous personal VO2max. Good work champ.

Digger is absolutely spot on about Lance's weight. Lance said under oath that it was never as low as the amount Coyle claimed. So on that basis the data is wrong. Secondly the testing environment parameters and artifacts varied too much to ever draw the conclusions Coyle made. But then again Coyle's paper was nothing more than an attempt at fancy marketing. Ed Coyle, or anyone else for that matter, can't prove Lance's weight throughout his career, let alone his VO2max or cycling efficiency improvements. End of discussion. Conclude whatever you wish from that be it Lance is superhuman or just a big unknown or simply a fraud.

 

[keen_but_slow]

Yes, it's like the MMR vaccine nonsense in the UK. A totally discredited paper, but the conclusion (the MMR jab can induce autism in young children) remains true in the public consciousness.

I like the "which is more likely?" approach. Which is more likely - a huge improvement in efficieny of someone that was already a world champion, or something not being controlled properly in two undocumented experiments conducted 7 years apart?

 

[Digger]

Digger has you beaten accoggan. Take a good look at the interview with Michael Ashenden:

http://nyvelocity.com/content/interviews/2009/michael-ashenden

Ed Coyle's article is not only scientifically bogus but if Ashenden is correct he lost the data. .

Fact, he did lose it. And Mr Coggan, amazingly, last night said this was not in any way a big deal.
So to summarise, the tester loses key data, takes Lance's word for his weight, because the tester didn't have enough access to weigh the subject. Yet, reduction in body mass according to Coyle, led to an improvement of 8%. Unbe-f***ing-lievable...which it actually is.

 

[acoggan]

Which is more likely - a huge improvement in efficieny of someone that was already a world champion, or something not being controlled properly in two undocumented experiments conducted 7 years apart?

A better way to put it would be "which is more likely - a small but nonetheless significant (from a competition perspective, anyway) improvement in the efficiency of someone who was only 20 y at the time of the initial measurements, or something not being controlled properly in five measurements conducted over a 7 period?"

Even phrased that way, I'd say that there is good reason to be concerned about the accuracy of the data. As I have repeatedly pointed out, however, Coyle's observation that efficiency tends to improve over time in highly-trained cyclists has since been confirmed in several more carefully-controlled, prospective studies.

 

[acoggan]

Fact, he did lose it. And Mr Coggan, amazingly, last night said this was not in any way a big deal.

This is incorrect: I have never commented on the fact that Coyle states that he lost much of the data.

 

[acoggan]

Digger has you beaten accoggan. Take a good look at the interview with Michael Ashenden:

http://nyvelocity.com/content/interviews/2009/michael-ashenden

That interview is one of the reasons that I tend to view Ashenden with disdain. I mean, come on: making a big deal out of Armstrong's height based on the reports of people who have supposedly stood next to him?? Why does it really matter?

Ed Coyle's article is not only scientifically bogus but if Ashenden is correct he lost the data. The man is a scientific joke

Your opinion doesn't seem to be shared by Coyle's peers, as his papers continue to be cited at the same high rate as before the article in question.

and for accoggan to vouch for his paper is ludicrous.

I haven't "vouched" for the paper, but merely commented on what I view as its relative strengths and weaknesses.

I especially liked your personal claims of an enormous personal VO2max. Good work champ.

When I was in my mid-20's my VO2max in mL/min/kg was in the low 80s, as measured at four different universities. Would you like me to post the data? Unlike Armstrong's, it hasn't been lost.

Digger is absolutely spot on about Lance's weight. Lance said under oath that it was never as low as the amount Coyle claimed. So on that basis the data is wrong.

I don't recall Digger ever saying anything about Armstrong's weight. Be that as it may, we all seem to be in agreement that Armstrong testified under oath that he started the Tour each year at 73-74 kg, i.e., slightly higher than the 72 kg value in the Coyle paper, but significantly below the 76-80 kg he was measured at during the off-season, and slightly below the 75 kg he was measured as weighing just after he won Worlds in 1993.

Secondly the testing environment parameters and artifacts varied too much to ever draw the conclusions Coyle made.

Please state the variations and artifacts to which you are referring. Coyle has stated that the same ergometer and same metabolic cart were used for all testing, and there is nothing in the data as presented that makes it appear suspect.

 

[acoggan]

I believe Coyle may have gone into the study with good intentions, but along the way, for whatever reason (I have my theory but that's for another day), he formed an idea of what he would like his results to be, because the study was not going to be used simply for its initial intended purpose.

You do realize that the paper was published after Armstrong retired, and well before the SCA trial occurred?

And as TFF points out, the study is being used as a reason for Lance not having doped.

That it is, but the people who do so are simply being naive (as are those who think that, e.g., you can definitively determine whether someone doped or not based on the time it took them to scale a climb of uncertain distance and gradient under uncertain environmental conditions at an uncertain body mass).

For God sake, Coyle even testified in the SCA trial about Lance not needing EPO, because of the 18% improvement he had attained. Although Coyle also spoke about EPO only giving a five to six percent improvement in power output.

On average, the limit is more on the order of 10%, but it depends on the individual's initial hematocrit.

So on the one hand, we have this going on with Coyle, and then we have Andrew Coggan saying that Michael Ashenden has not done anything constructive in the anti-doping movement. Hypocrisy....

How am I being hypocritical? Please be specific.

 

[Digger]

This is incorrect: I have never commented on the fact that Coyle states that he lost much of the data.

Originally Posted by Digger
Shame MA and others couldn't get their hands on Coyle's data records. The dog ate it I guess.


A Coggan last night in his reply to my above comment:
"Unless Coyle simply made up all the numbers, it wouldn't have made any difference".

 

[acoggan]

The goal of Coyle's paper is to provide a smokescreen for a doped athlete.

When were the data in Coyle's paper collected? When were they first presented as an abstract? When were they published in JAP? When did the SCA trial occur?

If you pay attention to the timeline, Betsy, you will see that the facts don't support your claim.

 

[Digger]

You do realize that the paper was published after Armstrong retired, and well before the SCA trial occurred?



That it is, but the people who do so are simply being naive (as are those who think that, e.g., you can definitively determine whether someone doped or not based on the time it took them to scale a climb of uncertain distance and gradient under uncertain environmental conditions at an uncertain body mass).



On average, the limit is more on the order of 10%, but it depends on the individual's initial hematocrit.

I am well aware of that thank you, well aware of the timeframe.

So the basis for the 5 to 6%?

Hypocrisy, this paper and Coyle are doping apologists. Coyle in his hert of heats knows that Lance doped and that much of this paper is tenuous, at best, yet he testifies that Lance doesn't need EPO. And you talk about MA not doing anything constructive.

 

[acoggan]

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.

Since I don't routinely engage in conversations about things that don't really matter to me (such as whether Armstrong did or did not dope), I had no reason to publically comment on such claims. Moreover, others in the scientific community took Coyle to task over relevant issues, so there was really no reason for me to "pile on" (especially since I see no reason to get as worked up about it as, e.g., Ashenden, Martin, Gore, et al. have).

 

[Digger]

When were the data in Coyle's paper collected? When were they first presented as an abstract? When were they published in JAP? When did the SCA trial occur?

If you pay attention to the timeline, Betsy, you will see that the facts don't support your claim.

Data collected yes...but there's some fair jumps between data collected and final analysis. That's the point.

 

[acoggan]

So the basis for the 5 to 6%?

You'd really have to ask Coyle how he reached that conclusion. To speculate, however, perhaps he had reason to believe that Armstrong's hematocrit was closer to 45% than to 40%. (The % increase in VO2max will be roughly half of the % increase in hematocrit, with the latter tending to be capped by the WADA-imposed hematocrit limit.) Alternatively, perhaps he based his statement on the fact that performance tends to change less than VO2max when arterial O2 content varies (e.g., with altitude).

Hypocrisy, this paper and Coyle are doping apologists. Coyle in his hert of heats knows that Lance doped and that much of this paper is tenuous, at best, yet he testifies that Lance doesn't need EPO. And you talk about MA not doing anything constructive.

Since I have not commented one way or the other on what Coyle has or hasn't done in the anti-doping "crusade", you are clearly off-based in accusing me of hypocrisy.

 

[acoggan]

Data collected yes...but there's some fair jumps between data collected and final analysis. That's the point.

And again I ask "when were the data first presented in abstract, and when was the SCA trial"?

 

[acoggan]

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).

I don't think that you can call it a conflict, as I have had no interactions with Ashenden, nor am I likely to (since we travel in completely different circles). I do, though, tend to view him with disdain, based on his public words and actions (and even privately his colleagues have described him as a bit of a hot-head). I do because I think that his approach to matters is based too much on emotion, which tends to undermine any moral authority he might have as someone with significant knowledge re. the technical details of some anti-doping tests.

I am surprised when you say that you have rarely encounted the view that anti-doping authorities on a witch-hunt fueled by bad science (as I originally put it). There have been editorials in major scientific journals making this very point.

 

[acoggan]

What you miss is the importance of said "science" to the myth of Mr Armstrong.

Not in the least (remember what I said about taking my words literally and in isolation?).

substantiate your claims about the EPO test

To what are you referring - I never said anything about the test for EPO?

and specifically the Feb Article by Mr Ashenden with actual scientific rebuttal.

My criticisms of Ashenden aren't based on any published scientific data, but rather his actions and words.

 

[Digger]

You'd really have to ask Coyle how he reached that conclusion. To speculate, however, perhaps he had reason to believe that Armstrong's hematocrit was closer to 45% than to 40%. (The % increase in VO2max will be roughly half of the % increase in hematocrit, with the latter tending to be capped by the WADA-imposed hematocrit limit.) Alternatively, perhaps he based his statement on the fact that performance tends to change less than VO2max when arterial O2 content varies (e.g., with altitude).



Since I have not commented one way or the other on what Coyle has or hasn't done in the anti-doping "crusade", you are clearly off-based in accusing me of hypocrisy.

Seems we're left with alot of speculation with this paper, considering the suppositions that appear to have been made.

Yes you haven't commented on Coyle, you seem to give him a free pass in the doping area, like he is above comment. Yet Coyle has defended vigorously, using spurious science, a doper, And last night you say that a guy who has worked for years in anti-doping, and helped construct an EPO test, has not done anything constructive. No way are you being balanced, and you are letting your personal vendettas and agendas cloud your judgement.
You can retort any which way you like, but your credibility is zero in my eyes, due to your obvious bias.

 

[Digger]

And again I ask "when were the data first presented in abstract, and when was the SCA trial"?

And again I say this:
Data collected yes...but there's some fair jumps between data collected and final analysis. That's the point.

 

[Digger]

Not in the least (remember what I said about taking my words literally and in isolation?).



To what are you referring - I never said anything about the test for EPO?



My criticisms of Ashenden aren't based on any published scientific data, but rather his actions and words.

Thank you...says it all...good day.

 

[acoggan]

Coyle had every choice: why use this weight at all?

Because the particular issue at hand is, what was Armstrong's power-to-mass when he won his multiple Tours? Since he never weighed Armstrong during that time, all he could do was ask him what he weighed.

(Which is not to say that I personally would have taken the same route as Coyle...then again, that may be why he has many more papers to his name than I do.)

 

[acoggan]

Thank you...says it all...good day.

You give up too easily.

 

[acoggan]

Seems we're left with alot of speculation with this paper, considering the suppositions that appear to have been made.

No disagreement there.

Yes you haven't commented on Coyle, you seem to give him a free pass in the doping area, like he is above comment. Yet Coyle has defended vigorously, using spurious science, a doper,

Has he? Other than the SCA trial (during which the paper in question was used by Armstrong's attorneys as part of his defense against claims that he doped), when has Coyle ever even publically commented on doping in sports?

And last night you say that a guy who has worked for years in anti-doping, and helped construct an EPO test, has not done anything constructive.

Am I not entitled to an opinion?

No way are you being balanced, and you are letting your personal vendettas and agendas cloud your judgement.
You can retort any which way you like, but your credibility is zero in my eyes, due to your obvious bias.

Think what you like, but ask yourself this: if individuals like Ashenden, the former head of the IOC, etc., comported themselves more like, say, President Obama than Rush Limbaugh, would there be nearly as many discussions on the web such as this one?

 

[acoggan]

And again I say this:
Data collected yes...but there's some fair jumps between data collected and final analysis. That's the point.

Actually, the point is that the data in the Coyle paper were presented in abstract form in 2002, i.e., 2 y before the 2004 Tour for which SCA was "on the hook" for the $5 million bonus, and 5 y before the case went to trial and was eventually settled. That timeline would seem to undermine the beliefs of the conspiracy theorists who claim that Coyle "cooked the data" to serve Armstrong's needs.