New York Times Julie Macur doesn't seem like a fangirl to me

[mastersracer]

you realize if you assume no wind, going by Simmons's analysis the result for Armstrong's 2004 time trial is about 6.35 watts/kg. Given that it was a 15km time trial (winning time 39'41') it doesn't seem like the modeling effort + assumption of no wind is particularly revealing.

 

[acoggan]

iwind speed/direction is obviously critical. it should be observed and measured as accurately as possible. without it, we have much greater uncertainty and we're left to make assumptions.

Don't forget that you have to *** u me values for CdA, Crr, drivetrain efficiency, equipment mass, etc., etc., etc.

rhetorically speaking, should we not even bother to perform the calculations based upon a few different scenarios for the purposes of discussion?

To what end? That is, what purpose does such discussion serve? At the end of the day, the only thing that can be said with certainty is how fast various rider have made it up any particular climb (*** u ming, of course, that the timing/distance measurement is accurate).

 

[acoggan]

*simmons references 6.2 w/kg. too high? too low? either way it's what he's chosen.

Incorrect: like me, Alex doesn't believe it is possible to pin a precise number on what is/isn't physiologically possible. The 6.2 W/kg number is the "line in the sand" drawn by, e.g., Ross Tucker.

 

[Parrot23]

On Macur, my impression is there are a lot of "brave" folks who have been arriving late at the "party", if you want to call it that, and firmly sticking their fingers up into the wind and taking a good read of wind direction.

She was trashing Landis as recently at the Tour of California with a gratuitous comment about him "looking like an important man".

Where were these folks in years past? There's been a lot of fawning generally speaking about superlative Lance and other performances in the mainstream press and all sorts of attempts to justify them and rationalize them post hoc. Yes, indeed. Just talk to Phil Anderson and he has had a pretty good idea for a long time of what is and should have been legitimately possible in regards to Armstrong.

BUT, journalists like Macur at a big paper like NYT are in an impossible situation: they can hardly play the dissident when Lance was ascendant, and lose all access for their paper. Her bosses would not be impressed. And Postal/Discovery were masters are this game, blackballing journos who asked uncomfortable questions.

---------------------------------------------

"Riders with at least 7 of the unofficial top 16 times up L’Alpe d’Huez have tested positive, like Floyd Landis and Iban Mayo; have admitted to doping, like Bjarne Riis, Richard Virenque and Alex Zülle; or have been implicated in a doping scandal, like Jan Ullrich."

That goes to the thrust of what Tucker et al are getting at, the implications of which WADA must be interested in researching, i.e. the output, etc., of doped riders (using EPO, whatever, and/or autologous blood transfusions), rather than shutting the question off with post hoc rationalizations.

 

[roadfreak44]

logic 101

On Macur, my impression is there are a lot of "brave" folks who have been arriving late at the "party", if you want to call it that, and firmly sticking their fingers up into the wind and taking a good read of wind direction.

She was trashing Landis as recently at the Tour of California with a gratuitous comment about him "looking like an important man".

Where were these folks in years past? There's been a lot of fawning generally speaking about superlative Lance and other performances in the mainstream press and all sorts of attempts to justify them and rationalize them post hoc. Yes, indeed. Just talk to Phil Anderson and he has had a pretty good idea for a long time of what is and should have been legitimately possible in regards to Armstrong.

BUT, journalists like Macur at a big paper like NYT are in an impossible situation: they can hardly play the dissident when Lance was ascendant, and lose all access for their paper. Her bosses would not be impressed. And Postal/Discovery were masters are this game, blackballing journos who asked uncomfortable questions.

---------------------------------------------

"Riders with at least 7 of the unofficial top 16 times up L’Alpe d’Huez have tested positive, like Floyd Landis and Iban Mayo; have admitted to doping, like Bjarne Riis, Richard Virenque and Alex Zülle; or have been implicated in a doping scandal, like Jan Ullrich."

That goes to the thrust of what Tucker et al are getting at, the implications of which WADA must be interested in researching, i.e. the output, etc., of doped riders (using EPO, whatever, and/or autologous blood transfusions), rather than shutting the question off with post hoc rationalizations.

If output of riders allegedly clean compared to riders who doped is under consideration why hasnt anyone been carping lemonds fastest ever time trial in the tour de france? I believe to this day he has not been bested by ullrich armstrong or any self confessed dopers...Hopefully you arent on jury duty for murder...deductive reasoning is useful when based upon fact...
when based upon hyperbole its just unintelligent inductive speculation...

 

[MacRoadie]

...deductive reasoning is useful when based upon fact...
when based upon hyperbole its just unintelligent inductive speculation...

Wow, someone must have read a few weeks ahead in his word-of-the-day calendar.

Anyway, a simple search on these forums will avail you of any number of discussions on the very topic of Lemond's TT. It's a fanboy favorite and has been carped about ad nauseum.

I'll warn you though, there aren't likely anywhere near as many polysyllabic words.

 

[lean mean &green]

Incorrect: like me, Alex doesn't believe it is possible to pin a precise number on what is/isn't physiologically possible. The 6.2 W/kg number is the "line in the sand" drawn by, e.g., Ross Tucker.

it was the only number simmons mentions and so i had to go with it. the other poster i was discussing the topic with must have also been using this figure. if you read carefully you'll notice that i said simmons "referenced" it, which implies he got it from another source.

 

[Lady Luck]

As we have seen on this very forum, nobody comes down harder on Armstrong than a disillusioned fanboy (or girl).

Yes it's an interesting phenomenon. Maybe they have issues with trust to begin with?

 

[lean mean &green]

Don't forget that you have to *** u me values for CdA, Crr, drivetrain efficiency, equipment mass, etc., etc., etc.

some of these are easier to estimate than others not to mention...........

every variable in the mathematical model does NOT carry the same weight and therefore does not introduce error the same way. wind speed (Va) factors in a little differently than CdA for instance. wind speed increases/decreases exponentially (it is immediately squared). CdA is fairly constant, easier to estimate, and a small miscalculation of CdA won't introduce the same error as Va. each variable contributes uniquely and some are more responsible for miscalculation than others. not pointing this out is a little irresponsible of you because your name is tied to this model so i would expect you to know it. although it's the last name listed so i a$$-u-me that you probably contributed very little.

 

[woodburn]

&#8220]

Sounds like one of his riders from last year.

 

[lean mean &green]

you realize if you assume no wind, going by Simmons's analysis the result for Armstrong's 2004 time trial is about 6.35 watts/kg. Given that it was a 15km time trial (winning time 39'41') it doesn't seem like the modeling effort + assumption of no wind is particularly revealing.

correct. i should have said 6.35 W/kg instead of 6.5 W/kg earlier. revealing? depends who you ask.

 

[Hugh Januss]

Yes it's an interesting phenomenon. Maybe they have issues with trust to begin with?

Or maybe it is insulting to be fed such a total line of bullcrap.

 

[R.0.t.O]

some of these are easier to estimate than others not to mention...........

every variable in the mathematical model does NOT carry the same weight and therefore does not introduce error the same way. wind speed (Va) factors in a little differently than CdA for instance. wind speed increases/decreases exponentially (it is immediately squared). CdA is fairly constant, easier to estimate, and a small miscalculation of CdA won't introduce the same error as Va. each variable contributes uniquely and some are more responsible for miscalculation than others. not pointing this out is a little irresponsible of you because your name is tied to this model so i would expect you to know it. although it's the last name listed so i a$$-u-me that you probably contributed very little.

Last name on journal articles is usually reserved for the Principal Investigator.

 

[fatandfast]

some of these are easier to estimate than others not to mention...........

every variable in the mathematical model does NOT carry the same weight and therefore does not introduce error the same way. wind speed (Va) factors in a little differently than CdA for instance. wind speed increases/decreases exponentially (it is immediately squared). CdA is fairly constant, easier to estimate, and a small miscalculation of CdA won't introduce the same error as Va. each variable contributes uniquely and some are more responsible for miscalculation than others. not pointing this out is a little irresponsible of you because your name is tied to this model so i would expect you to know it. although it's the last name listed so i a$$-u-me that you probably contributed very little.

If all the math is applied to 1 effort (Alpe D'Huez) what about GC standing pre and post effort? What were the human outputs pre and post climb? Did the effort cost the rider the overall win? Did the rider conserve before the measured climb and was the Alpe D'Huez a race within a race? Is the the climb the benchmark for a GC standing? Most Lemond math is suspect because the route is never the same and race days per rider per year are never compared. Many times a world record or personal record is broken in competition that is never achieved in training or mock race efforts. Greg should apologize to Contador or race him up the mountain, loser kissing the winner's azz.

 

[Desperate Moments]

Yeah, but everybody and their brother has beat around the bush and said everything but what they were trying to say. I haven't seen anyone just flat out say LA is under investigation, and that it's for doping and fraud.

When I read yesterday's story in the NYT, that description of LA leapt out at me, too. Juliet Macur is a serious journalist at the very top of her profession. I do know that editorially The New York Times considers the issue of doping in sports to be important and newsworthy, and that their stories are carefully reported and sourced according to the highest standards of journalistic ethics. And yes, there IS such a thing.

If I were LA and I saw that description of myself in The New York Times, I'd fall off my bicycle, too.

 

[lean mean &green]

Last name on journal articles is usually reserved for the Principal Investigator.

it was mostly a dig because of his patronizing use of "assume" but...

if i had to guess i'd say that the last name is a nod to a department supervisor who provided oversight, not a lead researcher. there are different conventions for different disciplines and different institutions. rules governing order of authorship are often vague.

 

[acoggan]

it was mostly a dig because of his patronizing use of "assume" but...

I used "*** u me" not to patronize you, but to emphasize the dangers inherent in making assumptions (notice that phrasing also indicts me).

if i had to guess i'd say that the last name is a nod to a department supervisor who provided oversight, not a lead researcher.

If you have bothered to read the paper, you would realize that is not true.

Anyway, to return to the question at hand: while (as you correctly pointed out) not all terms in the equation contribute equally to any uncertainty in the final estimate, the uncertainties are largely independent and either additive or multiplicative in nature. As a consequence, the overall uncertainty is significantly larger than for any one term. For example, even if you can estimate air density, mass, rolling resistance, and wind speed to w/in 2%, the overall uncertainty in the final estimated power is nearly 11%. Combine that with the uncertainty on the "supply side" of things, and it quickly becomes clear why attempting to use this approach to definitely identify who is/is not doping is a futile (yes, futile) endeavor.

 

[lean mean &green]

Anyway, to return to the question at hand: while (as you correctly pointed out) not all terms in the equation contribute equally to any uncertainty in the final estimate, the uncertainties are largely independent and either additive or multiplicative in nature. As a consequence, the overall uncertainty is significantly larger than for any one term. For example, even if you can estimate air density, mass, rolling resistance, and wind speed to w/in 2%, the overall uncertainty in the final estimated power is nearly 11%. Combine that with the uncertainty on the "supply side" of things, and it quickly becomes clear why attempting to use this approach to definitely identify who is/is not doping is a futile (yes, futile) endeavor.

i'm much more comfortable with statements such as this. open, honest reporting of error probably very close or identical to what you report in the original publication that others can work from to form their own opinion. this is where you should have begun. then, maybe a mention of how for mathematical reasons some variables like wind speed are more "sensitive" providing examples if you wish. not discussing error, arbitrarily assigning windspeed AND direction, and dismissing things out of hand as futile is obtuse.

 

[eigenvalu2]

Anyway, to return to the question at hand: while (as you correctly pointed out) not all terms in the equation contribute equally to any uncertainty in the final estimate, the uncertainties are largely independent and either additive or multiplicative in nature. As a consequence, the overall uncertainty is significantly larger than for any one term. For example, even if you can estimate air density, mass, rolling resistance, and wind speed to w/in 2%, the overall uncertainty in the final estimated power is nearly 11%. Combine that with the uncertainty on the "supply side" of things, and it quickly becomes clear why attempting to use this approach to definitely identify who is/is not doping is a futile (yes, futile) endeavor.

couldn't a monte carlo analysis help us here? i thought doping gives a significant advantage; while i can see the large range for these factors a probabilistic analysis might allow us to separate the doping range from the non-doping range, with an admitted overlap. i think the critical assumption would be "who is doping" from the list of riders. maybe start with the "known" dopers and compare to the "known" cleaner riders. maybe the distributions would completely overlap, but given the advantage of doping this seems unlikely. know of anyone who tried this?

 

[Anonymous]

I dont understand this thread I thought it was about julie macur?

And there are at least two people whos posts on this thread i stopped reading after page 1 cos they confused the hell out of me.

What ARE you all talking about. Im lost.

 

[buckwheat]

I used "*** u me" not to patronize you, but to emphasize the dangers inherent in making assumptions (notice that phrasing also indicts me).



If you have bothered to read the paper, you would realize that is not true.

Anyway, to return to the question at hand: while (as you correctly pointed out) not all terms in the equation contribute equally to any uncertainty in the final estimate, the uncertainties are largely independent and either additive or multiplicative in nature. As a consequence, the overall uncertainty is significantly larger than for any one term. For example, even if you can estimate air density, mass, rolling resistance, and wind speed to w/in 2%, the overall uncertainty in the final estimated power is nearly 11%. Combine that with the uncertainty on the "supply side" of things, and it quickly becomes clear why attempting to use this approach to definitely identify who is/is not doping is a futile (yes, futile) endeavor.

But you'd agree Armstrong is using gear?

 

[acoggan]

i'm much more comfortable with statements such as this. open, honest reporting of error probably very close or identical to what you report in the original publication that others can work from to form their own opinion. this is where you should have begun. then, maybe a mention of how for mathematical reasons some variables like wind speed are more "sensitive" providing examples if you wish. not discussing error, arbitrarily assigning windspeed AND direction, and dismissing things out of hand as futile is obtuse.

No, it's where the folks who mistakenly believe(d) that this is a viable approach should have begun.

 

[acoggan]

But you'd agree Armstrong is using gear?

I have no idea.

 

[buckwheat]

I have no idea.

Have you read FLTL?

 

[oldschoolnik]

I have no idea.

Wow, I get all your posts now. The person who knows more about power output than anyone isn't sure about the answer to this question? No wonder you don't want to commit to a non-doped ceiling on watts/kg.

Strickland, Paul Sherwin and Phil I get, it's the money, their livelihood. But I don't get this.

Damn, I feel like I did when I was 8 years old my parents told me Santa Claus was not real. Say it aint so Andy?