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

[acoggan]

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.

I'd actually be more interested in applying such techniques to the study of skeletal muscle metabolism (especially in the context of exercise), but so far I've had no luck convincing the powers-that-be (read: NIH) that is worth spending money on. (At $3-5k per experiment, costs add up very vast.)

 

[Realist]

I'd actually be more interested in applying such techniques to the study of skeletal muscle metabolism (especially in the context of exercise), but so far I've had no luck convincing the powers-that-be (read: NIH) that is worth spending money on. (At $3-5k per experiment, costs add up very vast.)

Re: topic

Cool!



Re: funding

Grants are painful, good luck. (Find some way to suggest it has a clinical application in an aging population... ?)

 

[Escarabajo]

... Coggan was pointing out that these efforts provide no evidence because the estimation error is too large. That seems right, given what Simmons indicates for quite modest assumptions about wind, and has nothing to do with how one might feel about Armstrong's performance. ...

What is the error? Do you have the data to prove that the error is too large?

Note: I am just starting to catch up with the thread posts so if somebody already mentioned this I apologize.

 

[Escarabajo]

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.

Did you substract the flat?

 

[I Watch Cycling In July]

....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)....

Absolutely. Care to state your best guess on whether a lot or a little doping is going on in pro cycling, based on power numbers that are drifting around? Just asking; will understand if you don't.

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)? ....

Yes. Can anyone who doesn't get the above point please read it again and think about it before launching into further ad hominem comments. The acceptable upper limit on power would have to be set high enough that it didn't lead to a false positive for a Merckx or a Boardman. Most riders can't do that without dope, so there is no way such power analysis is going to be an effective way to catch many riders out. Perhaps info about individual variability in form may be of some use as part of the passport, but absolute thresholds are no use as an anti-doping tool.

 

[131313]

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

And yet, you have time to posit on this forum that Jani Brajkovic may have increased his 5MP by 12-15% in two weeks because of his use of your Performance Manager and/or Cyclingpeaks.

Interesting.

 

[Oldman]

And yet, you have time to posit on this forum that Jani Brajkovic may have increased his 5MP by 12-15% in two weeks because of his use of your Performance Manager and/or Cyclingpeaks.

Interesting.

Wasn't this thread about something else? I forget what.

 

[Parrot23]

Thread switched right at the start to the SUBSTANCE of what Macur was talking about, not Macur (Oldschoolnik doesn't have a problem with that). Still OT of the substance of the issue posed by Macur: identifying suspect from genuine performances, if possible.

Coggan would hardly be on here discussing Macur. He thinks it's on topic or wouldn't be here.

 

[Parrot23]

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.

LOL, Coggan wouldn't be on the forum responding ad infinitum if he didn't find it an interesting scientific problem (exercise physiology). He has a definite view on it. It's a problem exercising a large number of members of the UCI expert committee coming at it from the other direction, blood profiles leading to performance boosts, not performances indicating probable doping.

Demarcation problems are always fascinating, even in art, ha, ha. See this on demarcating forgeries from genuine masterpieces (lots of analogies for our problems in procycling knowing what's legit. vs. not legit.).

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/07/12/100712fa_fact_grann

Fingerprints are the blood profile of masterpieces, it seems. Whether Andy S. and Bertie C.'s performances are "masterpieces", well, we're not quite sure

 

[oldschoolnik]

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".

"sidekick" I don't know Buckwheat and have never corresponded with him prior to this thread - I was trying to be funny a few posts ago but I meant everything I said - about your work on power and definitely was being honest when I reacted with surprise to learn that you are a LA apologist. Why? Because while I expect it from ignorant casual fans of the sport who say "there is no evidence against him" "he has never failed a test" - (having no idea what the evidence against him actually is) - these two lines of defense I never thought I would hear from someone like yourself, because I thought ( i guess incorrectly) that you would be much more objective since in your job as a scientist you are weighing evidence all the time. Leaving aside from Lance to Landis or stupid models of performance on mt stages there is still plenty of evidence, people in the US have been sent to the electric chair on less. You, as an exercise physiologist, must know about Ferarri? His history. His history with LA. How LA hid this relationship. Do you know who Fillipo Simeoni is? Why LA chased him down in a breakaway?



Anywho

 

[acoggan]

And yet, you have time to posit on this forum that Jani Brajkovic may have increased his 5MP by 12-15% in two weeks because of his use of your Performance Manager and/or Cyclingpeaks.

Interesting.

How many nanoseconds do you think it took me to come up with that hypothesis?

(As it so happens, I've seen his SRM file from the stage in which he went mano-y-mano with Contador...hence the reason the comments about his twitter post caught my eye.)

 

[acoggan]

LOL, Coggan wouldn't be on the forum responding ad infinitum if he didn't find it an interesting scientific problem (exercise physiology).

You misunderstand my motivations. The reason I have engaged in this discussion is that it bothers me to see scientific knowledge misapplied (IMO, of course). The problem itself (i.e., what are - not what determines, which is in fact far more interesting to consider - the limits of human performance, and how do you estimate power output in the field) is actually rather trivial.

 

[acoggan]

I reacted with surprise to learn that you are a LA apologist. Why? Because while I expect it from ignorant casual fans of the sport who say "there is no evidence against him" "he has never failed a test" - (having no idea what the evidence against him actually is) - these two lines of defense I never thought I would hear from someone like yourself, because I thought ( i guess incorrectly) that you would be much more objective since in your job as a scientist you are weighing evidence all the time. Leaving aside from Lance to Landis or stupid models of performance on mt stages there is still plenty of evidence, people in the US have been sent to the electric chair on less. You, as an exercise physiologist, must know about Ferarri? His history. His history with LA. How LA hid this relationship. Do you know who Fillipo Simeoni is? Why LA chased him down in a breakaway?

Allow me to repeat myself: I do not waste my time worrying about whether Armstrong is or is not guilty of doping, and consider myself completely agnostic on the issue. My objections to the proposed approach are based upon the underlying logic (or lack thereof), not whomever it might or might not be directed at.

 

[acoggan]

Care to state your best guess on whether a lot or a little doping is going on in pro cycling, based on power numbers that are drifting around?

Based on the power numbers that are drifting around, either a lot of riders are still doping, or the 6.2 W/kg "line in the sand" drawn by, e.g., Ross Tucker is too low. Unfortunately, the uncertainties associated with this proposed approach are too great for me to tell you which is closer to the absolute truth.

 

[Parrot23]

The reason I have engaged in this discussion is that it bothers me to see scientific knowledge misapplied (IMO, of course).

Sorry, when scientists differ in good faith on the same issues, it is an interesting scientific problem.

Look at all the fuss over string theory in physics. Lots of really good scientists think it's futile (eg. Smolin); others think it's the royal road to final theory of everything. It's gets most of the research funding; those who disagree tend to be shut out.

It's an interesting scientific problem because very bright scientists are disagreeing in good faith on the fundamentals. Their differences could hardly be more fundamental--and this is the best science there is.

 

[Parrot23]

(As it so happens, I've seen his SRM file from the stage in which he went mano-y-mano with Contador...hence the reason the comments about his twitter post caught my eye.)

Just curious: how did you see or get hold of Jani Brak's SRM file from the Dauphine?

(One would think RadioShack/Lim would consider that proprietary to the team, unless....)

 

[buckwheat]

How many nanoseconds do you think it took me to come up with that hypothesis?

(As it so happens, I've seen his SRM file from the stage in which he went mano-y-mano with Contador...hence the reason the comments about his twitter post caught my eye.)

Lance gave it the ok?

BTW, all of their power files should be publicly available. That is, if they want to dispel the rumor that cycling is a PED cesspool.

 

[buckwheat]

Just curious: how did you see or get hold of Jani Brak's SRM file from the Dauphine?

(One would think RadioShack/Lim would consider that proprietary to the team, unless....)

Yes, since Lance owns both RS and Lim.

 

[acoggan]

Just curious: how did you see or get hold of Jani Brak's SRM file from the Dauphine?

(One would think RadioShack/Lim would consider that proprietary to the team, unless....)

Sorry, but I don't kiss-and-tell. That's why people are willing to share their data with me in the first place.

(BTW, if you want to contemplate an interesting question, try making up your mind who rightfully owns a rider's power meter data...)

 

[acoggan]

when scientists differ in good faith on the same issues, it is an interesting scientific problem.

Perhaps (or perhaps not), but that isn't what motivates me in this context.

 

[buckwheat]

Sorry, but I don't kiss-and-tell. That's why people are willing to share their data with me in the first place.

(BTW, if you want to contemplate an interesting question, try making up your mind who rightfully owns a rider's power meter data...)

'I don't worry about what people do, It's all about science' blah, blah, blah....

What a load of horse $hit.

I thought the scientific community was transparent and shared/published their findings?

 

[acoggan]

'I don't worry about what people do, It's all about science' blah, blah, blah....

Because someone chooses to share some power data with me you assume that I spend time worrying about who is or isn't doping??

 

[buckwheat]

Because someone chooses to share some power data with me you assume that I spend time worrying about who is or isn't doping??

Whatever dude...

 

[lean mean &green]

sorry, but i don't kiss-and-tell. That's why people are willing to share their data with me in the first place.

c





o





i





?

 

[acoggan]

c





o





i





?

?

?

?