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

[buckwheat]

You are right, quantum mechanically there is finite probability that you car will jump up in the air while you are indoors watching your screen.

with this

Surely you are joking Mr Buckwheat

you nailed it.

The guy is speaking in code (meaningless) in order to avoid committing to an answer, and to make others uncomfortable, while the probable answer is right in everyone's face.

Cream and lemon indeed!

BTW, are we talking about Quantum time, Classical time, or Cosmological time here?

I'm believing the first and last have made the middle irrelevant, except of course, for issues that make us human beings.

 

[acoggan]

Hard to believe, when your mentor Coyle was a key participant in perpetuating the myth.

I don't understand - why should his involvement color my opinion? If absolute proof that Armstrong doped eventually surfaces, Ed will be the one who might feel duped/embarrased*, not me.

*Due to his testimony in the SCA case, not due to his paper on Armstrong.

 

[buckwheat]

Well, then that's clear. "Citizenship" anybody?

I think a lot of fence-sitters on teams/teammates will change their views when their putative agnosticism is threatened with the charge of perjury. Meanwhile they are being studiously "objective", LOL.

That's very simple and extremely profound, no kidding. Sad too.

 

[acoggan]

Well, then that's clear. "Citizenship" anybody?

Citizenship means (to me, anyway) educating yourself as much as possible on issues such as whether or not Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction, or on the backgrounds, political leanings, etc., of the last two presidential candidates, such that you can cast your vote accordingly. By comparison, whether or not Armstrong (or anyone else) doped/dopes is trivia in my book.

 

[buckwheat]

Citizenship means (to me, anyway) educating yourself as much as possible on issues such as whether or not Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction, or on the backgrounds, political leanings, etc., of the last two presidential candidates, such that you can cast your vote accordingly. By comparison, whether or not Armstrong (or anyone else) doped/dopes is trivia in my book.

Yes, trivia that could possibly put him in a position to make decisions regarding WMD, War and Peace, and so on and so forth.

Reagan was in Bedtime for Bonzo for goodness sake.

Who's that crazy chick from Alaska?

 

[CycloErgoSum]

I respect your reasonable posts on this forum, Andy. However, doesn't your last post imply that, as an exercise physiologist and trainer of athletes - a profession that has little bearing on the important issues of the world - what you do is therefore trivial?

 

[buckwheat]

I don't understand - why should his involvement color my opinion? If absolute proof that Armstrong doped eventually surfaces, Ed will be the one who might feel duped/embarrased*, not me.

*Due to his testimony in the SCA case, not due to his paper on Armstrong.

Absolute proof?

The guy who has refined the most accurate, sensitive, scientific theory ever advanced says "Nothing is certain" even down to the tiniest levels of understanding.

Also, for you not to realize that the prejudices of the observer affect the conduct and reporting of the experiment, is mind boggling.

 

[acoggan]

I respect your reasonable posts on this forum, Andy. However, doesn't your last post imply that, as an exercise physiologist and trainer of athletes - a profession that has little bearing on the important issues of the world - what you do is therefore trivial?

What I do (which, BTW, does not include training athletes) is indeed rather trivial, at least in the big scheme of things. However, that is something I have always freely admitted. If I were more altruistic I would have fulfilled my mom's wishes and become a physician like my uncle (who, somewhat ironically in the present context, was a well-known cancer researcher). I'm not, though, so I chose the career that interested me.

 

[acoggan]

Yes, trivia that could possibly put him in a position to make decisions regarding WMD, War and Peace, and so on and so forth.

Reagan was in Bedtime for Bonzo for goodness sake.

Who's that crazy chick from Alaska?

So I should obsess over the personal life of every athlete, movie star, musician, minor politician, etc., today, on the off chance they might choose to run for President at some point in the future? Dang, I'd better get started...

 

[CycloErgoSum]

What I do (which, BTW, does not include training athletes) is indeed rather trivial, at least in the big scheme of things. However, that is something I have always freely admitted. If I were more altruistic I would have fulfilled my mom's wishes and become a physician like my uncle (who, somewhat ironically in the present context, was a well-known cancer researcher). I'm not, though, so I chose the career that interested me.

Thank you for an honest response.

 

[buckwheat]

I have no idea.

As I indicated, I don't waste my time worrying about matters that have essentially no impact on my personal life.

What I do (which, BTW, does not include training athletes) is indeed rather trivial, at least in the big scheme of things. However, that is something I have always freely admitted. If I were more altruistic I would have fulfilled my mom's wishes and become a physician like my uncle (who, somewhat ironically in the present context, was a well-known cancer researcher). I'm not, though, so I chose the career that interested me.

So I should obsess over the personal life of every athlete, movie star, musician, minor politician, etc., today, on the off chance they might choose to run for President at some point in the future? Dang, I'd better get started...

This has become laughable and more a matter of psychology than anything else.

Are you an exercise physiologist?

Your expertise concerns physiological limits?

Andrew Coggan, Ph.D., is renowned in the cycling community for his research on power and exercise physiology. His research provided the foundation for the TrainingPeaks WKO+ software, which he co-developed with Hunter Allen. Coggan is a research associate at Washington University School of Medicine. He holds a Ph.D. in Exercise Physiology from the University of Texas and an M.S. in Human Bioenergetics form Ball State University. He has authored countless articles in medical studies and worked with USA Cycling to develop expert coaching clinics. Andrew Coggan, Ph.D., lives outside St. Louis, Missouri.

 

[Parrot23]

Of course doping is not "trivial" or peripheral to an applied exercise physiologist.

Scientifically speaking, demarcating genuine and suspect performers and their performances has become the most interesting scientific problem in the field (at least in regard to procycling, if that's one's focus). It's a huge scientific problem.

Doctors and applied physiologists on the dark side have done "impressive" work (Conconi, Ferrari, Cecchini, Fuentes, etc.) both legally and illegally. They've been on the cutting edge, sadly, of applied science.

The challenge is to call their work to account, to catch the the recipients of their work, if procycling is the focus of one's work. The biopassport is where things are happening. It's where the work and puzzles are interesting. Hopefully, there will be other approaches to the problem so that we won't all be Ayn Randian ostriches with our heads firmly stuck in the sand.

It's a real conundrum for those in the field to apply themselves to.

 

[acoggan]

Are you an exercise physiologist?

Yes.

Your expertise concerns physiological limits?

Yes, at least in a general sense.

Andrew Coggan, Ph.D., is renowned in the cycling community for his research on power and exercise physiology. His research provided the foundation for the TrainingPeaks WKO+ software, which he co-developed with Hunter Allen. Coggan is a research associate at Washington University School of Medicine. He holds a Ph.D. in Exercise Physiology from the University of Texas and an M.S. in Human Bioenergetics form Ball State University. He has authored countless articles in medical studies and worked with USA Cycling to develop expert coaching clinics. Andrew Coggan, Ph.D., lives outside St. Louis, Missouri.

Yup, that's me...so given the above, why is it that you distrust my opinion so? After all, your sidekick oldschoolnik labeled me "the person who knows more about power output than anyone".

 

[acoggan]

Yes, there are two sides to everything. You committing yourself to a decision here has as much consequence as ordering a vanilla or chocolate ice cream cone.

Even less, actually.

Nice evasion.

Not evasion: honesty.

 

[buckwheat]

Yes.



Yes, at least in a general sense.



Yup, that's me...so given the above, why is it that you distrust my opinion so? After all, your sidekick oldschoolnik labeled me "the person who knows more about power output than anyone".

I'm fairly certain, that an analysis of all the known variables regarding human behavior provide a clear answer.

I feel you're are weighing "political" considerations more heavily than all else in the expression of a final opinion regarding Armstrong.

I'm not playing this game anymore.

Whether or not a lot of people see these exchanges on these forums, IMHO, I believe these exchanges can be very harmful to your professional reputation.

Good Luck.

 

[eigenvalu2]

definitively verses probabilistically

AC - i note you are careful to say "definitely" when talking about identifing who is/is not doping. however, as number of other posters have noted, could we not generate probabilities as to whether someone is doping or not? that in itself would be useful information as opposed to the speculation that flys around. surely you are not saying there is no value to understanding the likelihood of doping. discussion of uncertainties is helpful, but should that stop the analysis? your argument seems to consist of:
1. there is uncertainly
2. therefore "definitive" identification is impossible
3. accordingly we can know nothing and should do nothing
of course this is obvious if definitive = 100%. nonetheless, if someone is 85% likely to be doping then i think that would be valuable info.

perhaps you are saying that you think a probabilistic approach is invalid or not useful?

 

[acoggan]

I feel your are weighing "political" considerations more heavily than all else in the expression of a final opinion regarding Armstrong.

What "political considerations"? I do not make my living coaching athletes or interacting with those that do, and as I have said before I have never met or communicated with Armstrong. It should also be clear that I don't care if by sharing my opinions I offend people like Ross Tucker. If such things played a role in determining my words and actions, I would be posting anonymously the way you do, instead of posting under my own name.

 

[acoggan]

AC - i note you are careful to say "definitely" when talking about identifing who is/is not doping. however, as number of other posters have noted, could we not generate probabilities as to whether someone is doping or not?

You could, but only with so much uncertainty as to make the endeavor worthless.

that in itself would be useful information as opposed to the speculation that flys around.

Would it? As best as I can tell, all it does is fuel speculation (cf. Contador's performance last year).

surely you are not saying there is no value to understanding the likelihood of doping.

In a general sense, or for a given individual?

In a general sense (i.e., when applied across multiple individuals in multiple races) I could see the approach being used to evaluate the efficacy of other anti-doping efforts. For a given individual, though, I think the cons far outweigh the pros (see below).

discussion of uncertainties is helpful, but should that stop the analysis? your argument seems to consist of:
1. there is uncertainly
2. therefore "definitive" identification is impossible
3. accordingly we can know nothing and should do nothing
of course this is obvious if definitive = 100%. nonetheless, if someone is 85% likely to be doping then i think that would be valuable info.

What do you plan to do with that information? Subject the athlete(s) to more tests? Aren't they already being tested as frequently as the system can handle, given who they are (i.e., the creme de la creme of the sport)?

perhaps you are saying that you think a probabilistic approach is invalid or not useful?

I don't think it is useful, and thus only serves to cast suspicion on those who are truly innocent.

 

[Realist]

Guys Dr Coggan is a genuine expert in measuring power, carbohydrate feeding, and many other aspects of exercise phys. Whether you agree or disagree with his opinions I think it would be worth treating him with some respect. I am interested to know what he thinks about Mike Ashenden's statements with respect to Lance's blood values, precisely because I would expect him to have a reasoned view of the situation. If that view does not accord with mine, it may be because he, as a scientist, has chosen to take particular care in the positive statements that he makes. It may also be because we just see things differently, and that may, in turn, be because Dr Coggan knows more than me. I don't totally agree with everything he has written regarding Dr Tucker's assumptions, but can we leave the conspiracy theory and ad hominem stuff out. I, for one, would be very grateful to have his point of view on this board.

Sorry, I know I'm a very new member here, but if you look at my posts so far, I think you'll see that (i) I'm far from a fan boy and (ii) I have some kind of reasonable idea about cycling.

 

[MacRoadie]

Once upon a time, Juliet Macur wrote an article for the New York Times...



I think...

 

[Realist]

Scientifically speaking, demarcating genuine and suspect performers and their performances has become the most interesting scientific problem in the field (at least in regard to procycling, if that's one's focus). It's a huge scientific problem.

I think it's more of an engineering problem and, to a degree, a statistical problem. Mostly, Dr Tucker's approach (and Andy's criticism of it) involves application of work that's already been done. This may be of practical relevance, and reducing the error sufficiently may be a difficult problem, but just because it's a problem and it involves science, doesn't make it an interesting scientific problem.

I would hazard a guess that at the moment Dr Coggan would be more interested in using tracer molecules in combination with modern imaging techniques (especially PET) to explore myocardial metabolism.

 

[Kennf1]

Once upon a time, Juliet Macur wrote an article for the New York Times...



I think...

You're trying to derail this thread with the original subject.

 

[eigenvalu2]

1. You could, but only with so much uncertainty as to make the endeavor worthless.

AC - thanks for the quick response. is this your gut feeling or is there a paper or two, or other analysis that supports this? ie shows that a probabilistic analysis can't resolve or reduce the the uncertainty?

2. Would it? As best as I can tell, all it does is fuel speculation (cf. Contador's performance last year).

Have people put analytically derived probabilities to the likelihood of Contador doping? I would love a link to this analysis.

3.In a general sense, or for a given individual?

In a general sense (i.e., when applied across multiple individuals in multiple races) I could see the approach being used to evaluate the efficacy of other anti-doping efforts. For a given individual, though, I think the cons far outweigh the pros (see below).

check - we approximately agree here. you could be right about a given individual, but i'm not so sure.

4. What do you plan to do with that information? Subject the athlete(s) to more tests? Aren't they already being tested as frequently as the system can handle, given who they are (i.e., the creme de la creme of the sport)?

no - i wasnt thinking of more testing. as a scientist i like numbers as as opposed to speculation. given the proven ability of athletes to avoid testing protocols, i think it would be valuable to understand the likelihood of cheating in the sport. this info would be useful for others as well. for example JV recently timed Contador up AD'H to determine if JV is tilting against windmills (for whatever that is worth). a more scientific approach might provide more valuable information and convince skeptics that the sport is "likely" clean.

5. I don't think it is useful, and thus only serves to cast suspicion on those who are truly innocent.

well i think we might say, casts suspicion on those that MIGHT be innocent. but everyone in procycling is under suspicion now, why not put some numbers to it so everyone can make a somewhat informed guess.

perhaps this is a difference in philosophy - if i may summarize your implied position: if we can't prove beyond a shadow of a doubt doping, say via adverse analytical test, then we should just remain silent so as not to put suspicion on the potentially innocent. an admirable point of view perhaps, but mightn't that be a little naive given the history of cycling?

 

[D Avoid]

Citizenship means (to me, anyway) educating yourself as much as possible on issues such as whether or not Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction, or on the backgrounds, political leanings, etc., of the last two presidential candidates, such that you can cast your vote accordingly. By comparison, whether or not Armstrong (or anyone else) doped/dopes is trivia in my book.

Weapons with massive instructions often don't work!!

 

[acoggan]

if i may summarize your implied position: if we can't prove beyond a shadow of a doubt doping, say via adverse analytical test, then we should just remain silent so as not to put suspicion on the potentially innocent.

I wouldn't necessarily put it as "beyond a shadow of a doubt" (perhaps "based on the preponderance of the evidence" would be a better description), but in any case, yes, I believe that the bar should be placed rather high...high enough, anyway, to exclude the use of estimated power outputs that are compared against some theoretical upper limit (back-of-the-envelope approximations are back-of-the-envelope approximations regardless of whether they are made by scientists or not).

an admirable point of view perhaps, but mightn't that be a little naive given the history of cycling?

Not naive, but I do often get the feeling that there is a cultural/philosophical/political difference of opinion at play in these discussions.