dbrower said:
I can live with the times as something like objective truth. But I'm going to go with Coggan that the power figures in the graph above are unreliable estimates based on a lot of assumptions that may or may not be true, and for which no confidence bars are shown -- which for a modelled, statistical argument is cheating on its own.
And be careful, because I'm not defending any of the top times as being free of artificial enhancement. I believe Coggan (and I) are saying the power estimates are not reliable without actual data files. Many of the people slagging Coggan here are wanting him to extrapolate based on bogus data. While that can be fun, it is a mugs game. He's not taking the bait.
-dB
Good points. Move the whole data curve down. Doesn't change the essential thrust of what's shown or the basic profile of the curve of who achieved what under what influence (and the latter we know). My take on this whole thing is that it's indicative or suggestive, nothing more or nothing less.
Remember, too, of course, the biopassport blood profiles are curves that are greatly affected by dehydration, other factors, whatever. They have to be interpreted by a committee. That says a LOT. No slam dunk. It's inferential and probabilistic, based on a pattern of evidence with a lot of uncertainty.
The difficulty, of course, is that for obvious reasons the UCI will never discuss the margins of error, which are likely significant.
But the applied exercise physiology guys (the ones with an interest in pro cycling) need to start posing bold hypotheses and proposing research programs any way they can and stick their necks out to have a chance at making progress. Doesn't mean they're not going to be wrong, but it's not scientifically productive if they don't do it. I don't see Coggan, for one, having any research program in this area.
Unfortunately, I think Conconi, Ferrari, Cecchini, and Fuentes etc., the guys on the dark side, are the real "heros" in the science here and have largely "solved" the determinants of high performance (at least on the biochemistry side, and Fuentes in fact boasts of having done so). The rest, I think, are pretty clueless. Can't argue with "success".