Which would be...?
Actually, it has. Specifically, despite the criticisms leveled at it from various quarters, it has not been withdrawn by the journal, Coyle has not admitted to any serious mistakes, and the most interesting part of the results (i.e., that efficiency tends to improve over time in highly trained cyclists) has been supported by subsequent papers.
You must be using some sort of new math, because as I see it Indurain's VO2max of 79 mL/min/kg is indeed lower than Armstrong's 80+ mL/min/kg (as measured in two different labs).
Yes, let's.
(Fact: to have a VO2max of 6 L/min with a maximal heart rate of 200 beats/min would require a stroke volume at VO2max of ~175 mL/min, which is actually significantly
greater than you'd expect to find in an untrained 7 ft tall man.)
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).
And again I ask, what are my vested interests in this area? Morever, where is my lack of objectivity? Everything that I have stated is factually correct, as anyone can verify for themselves.