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

[Digger]

1) What makes you think that his VO2max was any lower at that time than the 81 mL/min/kg that Coyle measured in 1999, or the 84 mL/min/kg that the OTC got in 1996?

2) Why does it even matter?

So now you're citing two different tests by two different people. Better again.
It's up there with your use of the word 'probably'.

 

[Digger]

1) What makes you think that his VO2max was any lower at that time than the 81 mL/min/kg that Coyle measured in 1999, or the 84 mL/min/kg that the OTC got in 1996?

2) Why does it even matter?[/QUOTE]

Well you're the one citing a test he did when he was a kid that says it 'was though the roof'. One minute you're providing these quotes, the next, it isn't that important because you also had a really high VO2Max when tested.

 

[LMaggitti]

I'm not sure which are worse sometimes, the fanboys or the haters, but in this thread it's the haters. Now, I think it's pretty clear that the Coyle study is flawed, and personally I think it is (at least) more likely than not that Armstrong doped. But it's not enough for the haters to make those points:

(1) A flawed study is called a "fraud." That's a pretty serious accusation, and one which none of the scientific critics are making. There are many flawed scientific studies, but very, very few fraudulent studies.
(2) One poster comes along to make a few narrow, specific defenses of portions of the study. He makes a number of points, some of which are disputable, but (with some exceptions), instead of engaging him on the narrow points, he gets slammed with a slew of unsupported comments regarding his motives, combined with non-responsive comments which take the basic form of ignoring his specific, narrow defense and slamming some other aspect of the study which he isn't defending.

On the broader point of Armstrong's physiology, studies aside, doping or not, you don't win 7 tours against riders who were themselves doping unless you are a pretty remarkable physical specimen to begin with. Now, I understand (and basically agree with) the other side of coin - that you don't win 7 tours against a peleton composed of dopers unless you yourself are doping - unless you are superhuman, and Armstong is not that. But some haters seem to want to take it one step further, and try to turn Armstrong into a mediocre rider whose success is entirely attributible to doping. That is at least as absurd as the arguments made on the other side by the fanboys.

 

[acoggan]

Supposition and assumption is not good enough.

Not good enough for what?

Why measure it at all if the variables are not being replicated.

Because Armstrong requested the test be performed.

What can we deride from these figures

That 1) Armstrong had a high VO2max when he won Worlds in 1999, 2) that his VO2max was still well above that of the average person when recovering from chemotherapy and hardly training*, and 3) his VO2max returned to essentially the same level, at least in the off-season, once he was healthy and training regularly again.

*in the fall of 1996, I did a TTT in which Armstrong and Eddie Merckx also "competed". To describe him as looking ill would be an understatment..."walking ghost" would be more apt.

 

[Digger]

I'm not sure which are worse sometimes, the fanboys or the haters, but in this thread it's the haters. Now, I think it's pretty clear that the Coyle study is flawed, and personally I think it is (at least) more likely than not that Armstrong doped. But it's not enough for the haters to make those points:

(1) A flawed study is called a "fraud." That's a pretty serious accusation, and one which none of the scientific critics are making. There are many flawed scientific studies, but very, very few fraudulent studies.
(2) One poster comes along to make a few narrow, specific defenses of portions of the study. He makes a number of points, some of which are disputable, but (with some exceptions), instead of engaging him on the narrow points, he gets slammed with a slew of unsupported comments regarding his motives, combined with non-responsive comments which take the basic form of ignoring his specific, narrow defense and slamming some other aspect of the study which he isn't defending.

On the broader point of Armstrong's physiology, studies aside, doping or not, you don't win 7 tours against riders who were themselves doping unless you are a pretty remarkable physical specimen to begin with. Now, I understand (and basically agree with) the other side of coin - that you don't win 7 tours against a peleton composed of dopers unless you yourself are doping - unless you are superhuman, and Armstong is not that. But some haters seem to want to take it one step further, and try to turn Armstrong into a mediocre rider whose success is entirely attributible to doping. That is at least as absurd as the arguments made on the other side by the fanboys.

You know his results before he met Michele Ferrari? Losing 20 mins a time on mountain stages - regularly.

 

[acoggan]

So now you're citing two different tests by two different people.

Not just different people; different labs using different equipment. Such independent confirmation provides assurance that the measurements are indeed correct.

 

[Digger]

Not good enough for what?

For people who believe that one basic requirement of a field research study is fixed testing conditions, if the testing is being done more than once.

 

[Digger]

Not just different people; different labs using different equipment. Such independent confirmation provides assurance that the measurements are indeed correct.

More variables.

 

[acoggan]

Well you're the one citing a test he did when he was a kid that says it 'was though the roof'. One minute you're providing these quotes, the next, it isn't that important because you also had a really high VO2Max when tested.

I have never claimed that Armstrong's VO2max was higher than that of many other elite endurance athletes, nor have I ever argued that his VO2max was the reason for his success. Most importantly, I have explicitly stated that I do not consider Armstrong's VO2max data as critical to Coyle's paper. Thus, the only reason that I am debating this issue with you is because you wish to make it seem as if his VO2max wasn't what it has been documented to be.

 

[acoggan]

More variables.

Hence the reason such data are reassuring, e.g., the lend support to the conclusion that the 81 mL/min/kg measured in Coyle's lab wasn't just due to, e.g., a miscalibrated gas analyzer.

 

[Digger]

I have never claimed that Armstrong's VO2max was higher than that of many other elite endurance athletes, nor have I ever argued that his VO2max was the reason for his success. Most importantly, I have explicitly stated that I do not consider Armstrong's VO2max data as critical to Coyle's paper. Thus, the only reason that I am debating this issue with you is because you wish to make it seem as if his VO2max wasn't what it has been documented to be.

My problem, as I said many times, is the fact that it was measured at different times. Just like his weight was measured at different times, when it was measured at all.

 

[acoggan]

For people who believe that one basic requirement of a field research study is fixed testing conditions, if the testing is being done more than once.

So your position is that the lack of standardization with respect to when the measurements were taken should have precluded publication of the data in the first place? If so, neither the reviewers nor the editors at JAP seem to have agreed with you.

 

[LMaggitti]

You know his results before he met Michele Ferrari? Losing 20 mins a time on mountain stages - regularly.

And this is precisely what I mean. Look, there are many, many possible explanations for improved performance in a cyclist, aside from doping. Maturation, weight loss (yes, somewhat disputed in Armstrong's case), changing role on the team (i.e., cyclists who are not trying for a GC result or stage victory don't tend to go "all out" on mountain stages; it's pretty easy to lose 20 minutes if you aren't going for a result), better training, better team support, etc.

As I said, I'll be the first to say that doping was most likely a big part of Armstrong's improvement. But doping does not turn an average rider into a seven timer tour winner - especially when that (presumed) doper is competing on a level playing field (i.e., his competitors are also doping).

And that leads to the real irony here. The haters (with reason) mock the fanboys for blind faith in Armstrong, and a refusal to examine the evidence. But the haters (not all of them, but people like you) are the mirror image - so blinded by hatred that they fall prey to the same kind of blindness to evidence and illogic of the fan boys.

 

[Digger]

So your position is that the lack of standardization with respect to when the measurements were taken should have precluded publication of the data in the first place? If so, neither the reviewers nor the editors at JAP seem to have agreed with you.

See post 186.

 

[Digger]

And this is precisely what I mean. Look, there are many, many possible explanations for improved performance in a cyclist, aside from doping. Maturation, weight loss (yes, somewhat disputed in Armstrong's case), changing role on the team (i.e., cyclists who are not trying for a GC result or stage victory don't tend to go "all out" on mountain stages; it's pretty easy to lose 20 minutes if you aren't going for a result), better training, better team support, etc.

As I said, I'll be the first to say that doping was most likely a big part of Armstrong's improvement. But doping does not turn an average rider into a seven timer tour winner - especially when that (presumed) doper is competing on a level playing field (i.e., his competitors are also doping).

And that leads to the real irony here. The haters (with reason) mock the fanboys for blind faith in Armstrong, and a refusal to examine the evidence. But the haters (not all of them, but people like you) are the mirror image - so blinded by hatred that they fall prey to the same kind of blindness to evidence and illogic of the fan boys.

Do you know of the work which Michele Ferrari has done with cyclists? Aware of the effect that EPO and blood doping has. Aware that pre-EPO, you couldn't turn a mule into a racehorse, but after EPO, this changed? You aware that Ferrari is the best doping doctor in the business and Lance had an exclusivity arrangement with him, meaning he couldn't work with others. And that Ferrari boasted that he could get a 30% increase in performance.
And I'm glad you can make sweeping generalisations like 'haters' etc. Come up with that all by yourself?

What annoys me is people like you who haven't got a clue about doping, and how it has transformed in the past 20 years. You see a few posts and make sweeping generalisations, like your the jury, judge and executioner.

Straight out...are you familiar with Lance's career? Especially pre-1997.

 

[Bala Verde]

So your position is that the lack of standardization with respect to when the measurements were taken should have precluded publication of the data in the first place? If so, neither the reviewers nor the editors at JAP seem to have agreed with you.

Perhaps JAP wanted more exposure and make money by selling more journals and a 'high profile article' on a world famous athlete. It rubs off on them as well, and might even undermine the quest for 'scientific' rigidity. They could have thought, if we don't accept it someone else will. It was a potential clump of gold that was tossed in their laps...

And see, people are still refering to/talking about that article. It must have been very good for JAP...

A way to compare it is to analyse how many other articles accepted by JAP demonstrated such/certain 'scientific deficiencies' as perceived by peers and/or here on the forum and that have been criticised - as far as I know - so vehemently....

I could be wrong though, and maybe the reviewers were seriously convinced that the article was publishable scientific material.

PS> What was the deal with that Korean scientist (Dr. Hwang Woo Su) on cloning, who had completely made up some parts of his research, mostly data - as he said under pressure to deliver/perform as a scientist - that later discovered by scientists who wanted to repeat the experiments, and found entirely different results. I think it was a big journo and they had to retract the piece, although it 'passed the panel' initially.

 

[LMaggitti]

Straight out...are you familiar with Lance's career? Especially pre-1997.

Yes, I am. And there is no question that he made a pretty remarkable transition from a very good one day racer/time trialist to a tour winner. But it is quite a leap to simply assume (as you do) that such leap is entirely, or even mostly, attributible to doping. Pre-cancer, Armstrong was at an age where few riders are able to contend in a grand tour. So his failure to do so is not that remarkable. Many riders have made a somewhat similar transistion (if less abrupt). Obvious the (apparent) pervasiveness of doping makes many of those other transitions suspect as well. But you act as if the transition that Armstrong made is entirely unique. It isn't.

Again, let me ask you, how does a mediocre rider - even a doper - win 7 tours? You would either have to posit (a) that his opponents weren't doping - absurd, as the evidence against most of them is even stronger than the evidence against Armstrong, or (b) that Armstrong has a dramatically better ability to benefit from doping than the rest of the peleton. Assuming that you are arguing the latter, what is your evidence? I've been following these threads for a while, and I've seen none. Nor would I consider it likely, given the science.

 

[Digger]

Yes, I am. And there is no question that he made a pretty remarkable transition from a very good one day racer/time trialist to a tour winner. But it is quite a leap to simply assume (as you do) that such leap is entirely, or even mostly, attributible to doping. Pre-cancer, Armstrong was at an age where few riders are able to contend in a grand tour. So his failure to do so is not that remarkable. Many riders have made a somewhat similar transistion (if less abrupt). Obvious the (apparent) pervasiveness of doping makes many of those other transitions suspect as well. But you act as if the transition that Armstrong made is entirely unique. It isn't.

Again, let me ask you, how does a mediocre rider - even a doper - win 7 tours? You would either have to posit (a) that his opponents weren't doping - absurd, as the evidence against most of them is even stronger than the evidence against Armstrong, or (b) that Armstrong has a dramatically better ability to benefit from doping than the rest of the peleton. Assuming that you are arguing the latter, what is your evidence? I've been following these threads for a while, and I've seen none. Nor would I consider it likely, given the science.

Greg Lemond, Merckx, Hinault, Contador, Ullrich, Roche, Fignon all contested at a young age.
He was never a good TT pre cancer - regularly losing 6 mins in stages of 50kms. He even dropped out in 1993. In 1995, in the form of his life (according ot him), he lost 28mins to Pantani in one stage amd 33 mins on Virenque on another stage.
Most riders who are good GT riders, are good from an early age. Andy Schleck is another example of late.
Would it ever occur to you that meeting Ferrari became a huge difference in his performance?

 

[acoggan]

Perhaps JAP wanted more exposure and make money by selling more journals and a 'high profile article' on a world famous athlete.

As I have said all along, what the reviewers (and I wasn't one of them) had to decide was whether the interest in the individual who was the subject of this case study outweighed the obvious limitations of the dataset, such that the paper was worthy of publishing. Also as I have said all along, I'm not sure where I would have come down on this issue (and at this point it is too late for me to honestly say).

 

[LMaggitti]

Do you know of the work which Michele Ferrari has done with cyclists? Aware of the effect that EPO and blood doping has. QUOTE]


Yes, I am. And the rest of the peleton was benefitting from the same. EPO use was pervasive. Maybe not from Ferrari specifically, but it's absurd to assume (again, it's an assumption) that Ferrari had some special secret method that was dramatically (not just a little bit) better than the others. (I would say as an aside that taking at face value Ferreri's own self serving estimate of how much he could improve a cyclist's performance is pretty laughable)

As for generalizing, I think I pretty specifically stated that what I was saying did NOT apply to all of the haters.

Finally, and there's that "assuming" on your part again going on again, I've been lurking here for quite a while, and am quite familiar with the science. That's why I reject many if not most of the simplistic defenses of Armstrong by the fan boys. But what amuses me about some of the haters - yourself included - is the combination of ostensible reliance on the science of doping, combined with a tendency to make unsupported assumptions and leaps of "logic."

 

[Digger]

Do you know of the work which Michele Ferrari has done with cyclists? Aware of the effect that EPO and blood doping has. QUOTE]


Yes, I am. And the rest of the peleton was benefitting from the same. EPO use was pervasive. Maybe not from Ferrari specifically, but it's absurd to assume (again, it's an assumption) that Ferrari had some special secret method that was dramatically (not just a little bit) better than the others. (I would say as an aside that taking at face value Ferreri's own self serving estimate of how much he could improve a cyclist's performance is pretty laughable)

As for generalizing, I think I pretty specifically stated that what I was saying did NOT apply to all of the haters.

Finally, and there's that "assuming" on your part again going on again, I've been lurking here for quite a while, and am quite familiar with the science. That's why I reject many if not most of the simplistic defenses of Armstrong by the fan boys. But what amuses me about some of the haters - yourself included - is the combination of ostensible reliance on the science of doping, combined with a tendency to make unsupported assumptions and leaps of "logic."[/QUOTE]

Show me an unsupported claim I have made.

 

[acoggan]

A way to compare it is to analyse how many other articles accepted by JAP demonstrated such/certain 'scientific deficiencies' as perceived by peers and/or here on the forum and that have been criticised - as far as I know - so vehemently....

A better way to judge it might be based on citations statistics.* According to the ISI, since its publication the paper has been cited on average 6.8 times/year, which is above average for JAP, but probably right about average for one of Coyle's publications. IOW, contrary to what you might be led to believe based on what is posted to threads such as this one, the paper seems to have received about as much acceptance in the scientific community as you might expect.

(*Even more telling, at least in my opinion, is how it has been cited, which recently has been by follow-up studies it appears to have inspired. IOW, despite the obvious limitations of the original dataset, publication of the paper does appear to have moved the field forward.)

 

[acoggan]

Straight out...are you familiar with Lance's career? Especially pre-1997.

According to Coyle's paper (to try to keep things on topic), here are the highlights (note: number after the year is Armstrong's age at the time):

1991 19 U.S.A. National Amateur Champion
1992 20 14th place in Olympic Road Race; Barcelona
1993 21 1st place in World Championships, Road Racing;
Oslo. Winner, one stage in Tour de France
1995 23 Winner of one stage in Tour de France
1996 24–25 12th place in Olympic Road Race; Barcelona. 6th
place in Olympic Individual Time trial;
Barcelona.

 

[Digger]

According to Coyle's paper (to try to keep things on topic), here are the highlights (note: number after the year is Armstrong's age at the time):

1991 19 U.S.A. National Amateur Champion
1992 20 14th place in Olympic Road Race; Barcelona
1993 21 1st place in World Championships, Road Racing;
Oslo. Winner, one stage in Tour de France
1995 23 Winner of one stage in Tour de France
1996 24–25 12th place in Olympic Road Race; Barcelona. 6th
place in Olympic Individual Time trial;
Barcelona.

No hint there of what was to follow in stage races.

I take your point about staying on topic though to be fair.

 

[LMaggitti]

Show me an unsupported claim I have made.

Let's start with your comments about other posters - saying to ACoggan "You obviously have vested interests." And assuming that I don't know the science just because I'm a new poster. Just to name two.

Your assumption that Ferrari had/has some super secret doping method known only to him that gives/gave Armstrong a huge advantage over the other dopers in the peleton. Enabling him to (for example) consistantly beat Ullrich, a doper himself, who (in another comment) you held up as an example of a truly talented cyclist who was able to win at a young age. (To be clear, there is plenty of evidence that Ferrari was a dope doctor, and that his methods improved performance - just no evidence - certainly none provided by you - that his methods were significantly better - or even different - than other doping methods).

That's just this thread, and not complete even so, but I don't have all day. Add other logical fallacies (for example, the post hoc fallacy of attributing Armstrong's success entirely to the Ferrari connection).