acoggan said:
Get your facts straight: the paper was published before the lawsuit came to trial, and Coyle presented the data in abstract before it was even filed.
Get your facts straight.
The abstract and paper are indefensible and an embarrassment. You have couched this as 'haphazard' more than once.
Why not be a bit more honest, and a bit less defensive?
acoggan said:
Not to disagree (or agree) with you, but what drug or drugs are known or might be expected to improve gross efficiency? Certainly not EPO (or blood doping)...steroids wouldn't seem likely to either (if anything, you'd expect gross efficiency to decline).
In any case, what Coyle said (was allowed to say) about the data isn't particularly important from a scientific perspective. What matters more is how the study was performed (rather haphazardly, but such is the nature of post-hoc analysis of a convenience sample) and what was found.
Now there is an interesting question - especially for a scientist.
Why don't you, or Ed, or whomever, do some studies with real dopers? Oops, Ed already did but got confused when he didn't acknowledge the contaminated sample/impact of externalities.
Critical, of course, to acknowledge this trivial detail before performing any such studies.
Now, there are clearly enough real dopers, even in the current peloton, for a decent study sample.
Most certainly there are enough to be able to guarantee them with anonymity.
In fact, if you work closely with the UCI, you could guarantee them a guarantee of no adverse analytical findings. Perhaps this activity could be pursued as part of this whole 'truth and reconciliation' nonsense and proposed amnesty.
What a wonderful set of test candidates.
Then you could assess your null hypothesis on steroids.
Or any number, or combination, of other doping agents and techniques.
Until then, this armchair has more demonstrated expertise and impartiality than Ed Coyle.
Dave.