Lance vs Cadel: a study of two 22-year-olds

[acoggan]

i find ed's definition of threshold ironic.

 

[Tyler'sTwin]

Regardless, Dave's statement isn't really correct (and given that he interned at the US OTC in the early 1990s, when/where Armstrong's VO2max was measured at 84 mL/min/kg - at 6000 ft altitude, no less - I'm a bit surprised he made it).

Wasn't that a Schumi-enhanced 1996 measurement?

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Regardless, Dave's statement isn't really correct (and given that he interned at the US OTC in the early 1990s, when/where Armstrong's VO2max was measured at 84 mL/min/kg - at 6000 ft altitude, no less - I'm a bit surprised he made it).

regardless... LA Doped. study useless.

 

[acoggan]

Wasn't that a Schumi-enhanced 1996 measurement?

I have to say, y'all seem to be missing my point: Dave gets upset with Ed because he (Dave) considers himself, not Ed, the expert in this area, then turns around and doesn't get the facts perfectly straight. If you're going to claim the high ground as the authority on a topic, you can't afford to make silly mistakes such as this.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

I have to say, y'all seem to be missing my point: Dave gets upset with Ed because he (Dave) considers himself, not Ed, the expert in this area, then turns around and doesn't get the facts perfectly straight. If you're going to claim the high ground as the authority on a topic, you can't afford to make silly mistakes such as this.

but you can take the high ground defending a doping apologist and armstrong supporter? riiiiiiiight.

 

[acoggan]

but you can take the high ground defending a doping apologist and armstrong supporter? riiiiiiiight.

I'm not defending anyone here...just playing fact-checker.

 

[Neworld]

i find it ironic ed's paper was published for armstrong's case vs sca.
i find it ironic ed conveniently lost all the data so noone can verify anything about his study.
i find ed's definition of threshold ironic.
i find it ironic ed relied on weight info lance changed significantly in his depositions.
i find ed's sycophantic conclusion ironic.
i find claiming 10 or more year's results explainable based on 6 data points taken at different times of the year at different levels of fitness over a period of 7 years laughable.

ymmv.

DW, I find your analysis totally funny. Thank you.

Again, what has Lance done that's actually real? He has generated a cloak of superiority, nothing more.

 

[acoggan]

Again, what has Lance done that's actually real?

Slept with the Olsen twins?

 

[Dear Wiggo]

I'm not defending anyone here...just playing fact-checker.

no, you are not. you cannot check ed's facts as he lost them all.
you are defending a doping apologist friend of yours. again.

despite your friend being definitively a doping armstrong supporter.

 

[acoggan]

no, you are not. you cannot check ed's facts

I was checking Dave's (vs. JT Kearney's).

 

[Dear Wiggo]

I was checking Dave's (vs. JT Kearney's).

epo. testosterone. cortisone.

not efficiency.

ymmv.

 

[Neworld]

I'm not defending anyone here...just playing fact-checker.

I must say I agree with Dear Wiggo here.

Never have I understood why people get lost in points 7, 8, 9... when from the very start points 1, 2, and 3...are unconfirmed, unverifyable, fabricated and useless.

Who cares about whatever happens thereafter? In the above scenario you sound like you're just arguing to argue?


These 2 points are not directed towards acoggan ( I cannot recall who asked about Lance's teammates and their biometric stats)

PS: I will give LA credit for getting chemo, having surgery, losing a testicle and being a fighter. As I do for the other 10's of millions of humans on the planet. But, they are not diabolical like him, and there are far more honest cancer reps than he is, even dead people like Terry Fox!

PSS: I can find the stats on C VdV, Landis and Hamilton and their Vo2's, Anaerobics... Clearly Landis was superior and worked even harder than Lance. If there is a need for me to find the stats to show they are superior to Dopestrong's I will get them, but those stats and comments are in CN forum. It must be hard for Lance to live with the fact that he really, really wants to be 'the man', but he's not. Sorry Lance.

 

[acoggan]

Never have I understood why people get lost in points 7, 8, 9... when from the very start points 1, 2, and 3...are unconfirmed, unverifyable, fabricated and useless.

Who cares about whatever happens thereafter?

"Facts matter!" - Joe Biden

 

[acoggan]

not efficiency.

Non sequitur: not only have I not said anything about efficiency, in his lay article Dave himself wasn't willing to confront the elephant in the room.

ETA some context: Dave wrote that article after I suggested to him that if he really wanted to rebut Ed's paper, he should try to publish his own peer-reviewed paper on Evans. However, either he wasn't willing to be so confrontational (I wouldn't have hesitated...obviously), or he couldn't get it accepted, so it ended up in a lay journal.

 

[Neworld]

"Facts matter!" - Joe Biden

I totally agree, just like the following.

1. LA doped his entire career and give that fact it is hard, if not impossible, to find a credible biometric statistic from him.
2. Please provide any credible predoping physiological stat, other than from Ed and his worthless study.
3. LA, JB are liars and everything they claim about Lance's biometrics should be retested or verified by unbiased, reproducible methods.
4. A long list of athletes have superior physiques compared to LA

That's just a start.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Non sequitur: not only have I not said anything about efficiency, in his lay article Dave himself wasn't willing to confront the elephant in the room.

ETA some context: Dave wrote that article after I suggested to him that if he really wanted to rebut Ed's paper, he should try to publish his own peer-reviewed paper on Evans. However, either he wasn't willing to be so confrontational (I wouldn't have hesitated...obviously), or he couldn't get it accepted, so it ended up in a lay journal.

Doping. Needles. Injections. Banned doctors.

The study you are defending, and its conclusions, are based on fraud.

You can bang on about this and that, trying to muddy the water or deflect / misdirect the conversation. That's fine.

Armstrong doped. Say it with me. Armstrong is a doper.

It's like arguing about what the cross was made from that Jesus was crucified on, when they've just come back in a time machine and said, there was no Jesus.

Seriously.

There is no cancer Jesus. There is no "truly inspired champion who embodies a phenomonen of both genetic natural selection and the extreme to which a human can adapt to endurance training performed for a decade or more [Ed Coyle, 2005][sic]".

There is just 1000 pages of evidence, nay facts that he was a lying, bullying, cheating fraud.

Anything else is completely and irrefutably irrelevant.

 

[acoggan]

The study you are defending, and its conclusions, are based on fraud.

(that's three now)

Show me where I have defended Coyle's study in this thread?

 

[Dear Wiggo]

(that's three now)

Show me where I have defended Coyle's study in this thread?

I don't need to. Anyone with any knowledge of you and your PhD supervisor Ed Coyle knows you are defending Ed, and his "study" by taking someone else to task over a trivial calculation based on BS recordings of a doper.

You could not fixate on a more irrelevant part of the discussion if you tried.

There's an elephant lying dead in the room of this discussion. There are flies laying maggots in its gaping wounds, its stench permeates the air, and you are arguing that David Martin has just called the feature wall paint colour brown, when it's actually more a burnt umber.

Seriously?

 

[zigmeister]

When is the story breaking that Vos is doped to the gills? Ridiculous how she simply rides away from every other competitor in every race when she wants...oh, that is even after just riding off the front to bridge a big gap on her own, then she proceeds to ride off the front of the lead group...ridiculous.

 

[acoggan]

Anyone with any knowledge of you and your PhD supervisor Ed Coyle knows you are defending Ed

Actually, anyone with any knowledge of me knows that I'm just a stickler for facts, period.

you are arguing that David Martin has just called the feature wall paint colour brown, when it's actually more a burnt umber.

After first claiming that he is the expert on paint colors...don't you see the irony?

 

[acoggan]

When is the story breaking that Vos is doped to the gills?

Depending on how the test was performed, reaching 6.63 W/kg at the end of a VO2max test isn't that high, even for a woman.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Actually, anyone with any knowledge of me knows that I'm just a stickler for facts, period.



After first claiming that he is the expert on paint colors...don't you see the irony?

No. I just see the dead elephant.

As for a stickler for facts? Really? Not interested in ergogenic aids per se? What do you mean we, kimosabe? No conflict of interest in defending your friend and business partner's (Hunter Allen) clients here on the forums?

We will have to agree to disagree on what a "fact" is, methinks.

 

[unsheath]

Actually, anyone with any knowledge of me knows that I'm just a stickler for facts, period.



After first claiming that he is the expert on paint colors...don't you see the irony?

There you go deflecting again. Hint.. No one gives a toss about the paint colours.

 

[Krebs cycle]

I take the bolded part to be Dave's not-so-subtle way of saying that Armstrong was a doper.

lol I took almost the entire article as Dave's not so subtle way of saying "we at the AIS think Armstrong is a doper and have done for a good many years". Ridemedia have very clearly specified to Dave that he steer clear of doping allegations in that article, which means this post deserves to be in the complicit media thread.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Anyway, where do you now stand on the issue of training-induced changes in efficiency? Obviously you were quite skeptical when you started this thread 3 y ago, but now you seem to have changed your opinion. Is that correct? If so, what has swayed you the most?

haha well a few things have influenced my thinking on this topic. For starters you have because you've pointed to a number of places in the literature now that seem to indicate that cycling efficiency is not "immutable". Secondly, this paper got me thinking more about the fact that running efficiency most certainly IS affected by motor coordination so why should cycling be immune to it?

J Exp Biol. 2010 Feb 1;213(3):487-92.
Muscle coordination is key to the power output and mechanical efficiency of limb movements.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20086134

Thirdly, I have always believed that cycling efficiency could change, but just not as much as what Ed shows in his LA paper which was 2-3% or thereabouts. I have always assumed that if any changes to efficiency occur they are probably within the limits of detection, which is why people like DTM and Asker (whom have had access to VO2 data from pro level cyclists) couldn't find such an effect.

Man Krebs. You too now believe Ed Coyle's study. Such a turn around from this:

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

All along Lance was doping and wow what do you know, improving his performance.

You'd think a couple of PhDs in exercise physiology woulda been able to work that out, but no. Ed Coyle's da man. Efficiency FTW! Thank you, SCA, for the money.

lol I took almost the entire article as Dave's not so subtle way of saying "we at the AIS think Armstrong is a doper and have done for a good many years". Ridemedia have very clearly specified to Dave that he steer clear of doping allegations in that article, which means this post deserves to be in the complicit media thread.

el oh el indeed.

ETA: acoggan, you ask "If so, what has swayed you the most?" At a guess, I'd say your insistent support of Krebs Cycle in his mission to discredit any Sky naysayers or propagate the myth that Wiggins and Sky are clean. But that's just me.