The Cycling News forum is still looking to add volunteer moderators with. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to
In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.
Thanks!
Digger said: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.
acoggan said: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.
dienekes88 said: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*
acoggan said: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.
acoggan said: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.
acoggan said:Unfortunately for you, I'm not.
Digger said:And your last point about non-scientists...patronising and false.
Digger said:acoggan said: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?
elapid said:See the other thread where this was hashed out.
Digger said: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.
acoggan said: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).
acoggan said: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.
ggusta said:Link to other thread, please. Tuesday is masochism night.
elapid said:Yep - I'm off for an interval session now. Need to work some steam off!
acoggan said:There is no fraud, merely a somewhat flawed paper that has received far more attention than it really deserves.
acoggan said:I think that in the lay world the paper is both unduly criticized and criticized for the wrong reasons.
You always speak in conspiratorial tones, with little to no proof to back up your claims while overlooking other's to the contrary.Eva Maria said: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 said: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.....
gillan1969 said: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 said: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.