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

[MacRoadie]

?

?

?

I believe he is suggesting a conflict of interest...

 

[buckwheat]

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.

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

Not that we're all that worried about it, but the clinic is primarily about the fact that what is determining the limits of human performance is injection and ingestion of prohibited substances.

You're not curious in the least about the possibility that Jani Brak's power was aided by PED's?

 

[Realist]

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.

You're not a scientist by profession are you?

 

[Oldman]

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.

Applying logical English to define your statement I can see why we all debate. The Problem is not Trivial. It's based on individual responses to chemical enhancement, training, recovery and the disguising of those regimes. You can say someone improved exponentially from training a specific regime and I might agree. To explain why a plow horse wins the Kentucky Derby employing that regime is tougher to accept.

 

[lean mean &green]

I believe he is suggesting a conflict of interest...

consultation of radioshack riders/staff and whether or not i wanted continued access to their power data would probably influence MY public comments about PED use. but i can only speak for myself.

 

[Le breton]

Originally Posted by Parrot23
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.

You're not a scientist by profession are you?

You're not a scientist by profession are you?

He sure does not sound like one.

 

[python]

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.

hence is coyle's problem as a scientist and the author of the controvercial paper that became the subject of that arbitration.

as an experienced scientists coyle should have known that blood doping can affect gross efficiency. also as an intelligent person he should have had awareness and appreciation of the blood doping history in the sport of cycling

so the conclusion he advanced - increased efficiency due to factors that did not consider blood doping - was tainted from the start.

a common sense observation.

as to your thoughts regarding uncertainty in estimating power and (mis)applying it to anti-doping as a yardstick, i generally agree but that should not invalidate tucker's usefulness or deserve him a 'tag'.

 

[Parrot23]

c





o





i





?

Gee, the estimated "n" data point is trivia (you can't see me rolling my eyes 'cause there's too much rolling resistance ).

My latest research protocol for my peloton study. Last one is performance before and after a Michelob® transfusion (® is the marker for the forensic guys at WADA):

Allow me to repeat myself: ® is the marker for the forensic guys at WADA.

 

[acoggan]

I believe he is suggesting a conflict of interest...

Ah, thank you. However, I'm not really seeing it...people do send me files occasionally, but that's the extent of it. IOW, aside from being able to say "hey, that's kinda cool" I don't benefit from it.

 

[acoggan]

Not that we're all that worried about it, but the clinic is primarily about the fact that what is determining the limits of human performance is injection and ingestion of prohibited substances.

You're not curious in the least about the possibility that Jani Brak's power was aided by PED's?

Not really. I mean, why would it matter to me?

 

[acoggan]

The Problem is not Trivial. It's based on individual responses to chemical enhancement, training, recovery and the disguising of those regimes

That's not the problem to which I was referring.

 

[acoggan]

consultation of radioshack riders/staff and whether or not i wanted continued access to their power data would probably influence MY public comments about PED use. but i can only speak for myself.

I don't consult with any Radioshack riders or staff.

EDIT (now that I'm back at a computer): In the interest of full disclosure, I should say that once or twice a year someone who works for CTS does call or email me with questions that they think I can help answer. All I really get out of our exchanges, however, is a chance to enjoy their sense of humor, so that is all I would lose if I ticked them off by violating their confidence (not that they ever really share anything of consequence anyway...they are quite discreet).

 

[python]

Not really. I mean, why would it matter to me?

because if the power file was a reflection of blood dope jani, it would incorporate as much (if not more) uncertainty that concerns you with estimates of power to isolate doping ?

iow,or in your words, a futile effort to take the file for a genuine record ?

 

[131313]

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.)

About as long as it took me to conclude that a 10-12% increase in 5MP in a highly trained (winning week long stage UCI stage races) rider in 2 weeks seems completely implausible.

I think your refusal to look at a question like that critically, yet your quickness to take partial credit for it, is curious.

I'll admit though that "doping" isn't the first thing that comes to my mind. "Hyperbole" and/or "shoddy data recording" seem more likely. Regardless, I just find it interesting.

 

[acoggan]

because if the power file was a reflection of blood dope jani, it would incorporate as much (if not more) uncertainty that concerns you with estimates of power to isolate doping ?

iow,or in your words, a futile effort to take the file for a genuine record ?

That logic would only apply if his power had been the highest I have ever seen.

 

[131313]

That logic would only apply if his power had been the highest I have ever seen.

What is the highest power for an hour that you've ever seen (not asking the rider's identity)?

 

[python]

That logic would only apply if his power had been the highest I have ever seen.

do you specifically mean jani's cp5 power ?

and even if it was not the highest, there is no way to exclude blood doping techniques differences due to evolving protocols, i mean for a hypothetical 'highest seen' and the one you referred to from the tos.

either way, blood doping would obscure the file and make it worthless for sound analysis of a clean rider's performance due to uncertainty.

 

[acoggan]

About as long as it took me to conclude that a 10-12% increase in 5MP in a highly trained (winning week long stage UCI stage races) rider in 2 weeks seems completely implausible.

I disagree, for two reasons:

1) unless he is regularly performing all-out, pursuit-style efforts in training (which is quite unlikely), he very well could have been underestimating his maximal 5 min power all along, and

2) how "fresh" you are affects the power you can produce over shorter durations (e.g., 5 min) much more than it influences the power you can produce over longer durations (e.g., up the final climb of a long stage).

I think your refusal to look at a question like like critically

It isn't that I don't think about such things critically, it is that I am knowledgeable enough to instantly realize that there are multiple factors at play that could explain such reports, with doping being only one of them. To the tin foil hat wearers, though, the latter is the only possible explanation.

, yet your quickness to take partial credit for it, is curious.

I was really just pointing out to people that there is another possible explanation, i.e., a taper effect (based in part on knowing that his coach does use the Performance Manager).

 

[buckwheat]

I disagree, for two reasons:

1) unless he is regularly performing all-out, pursuit-style efforts in training (which is quite unlikely), he very well could have been underestimating his maximal 5 min power all along, and

2) how "fresh" you are affects the power you can produce over shorter durations (e.g., 5 min) much more than it influences the power you can produce over longer durations (e.g., up the final climb of a long stage).



It isn't that I don't think about such things critically, it is that I am knowledgeable enough to instantly realize that there are multiple factors at play that could explain such reports, with doping being only one of them. To the tin foil hat wearers, though, the latter is the only possible explanation.



I was really just pointing out to people that there is another possible explanation, i.e., a taper effect (based in part on knowing that his coach does use the Performance Manager).

Super Troll.

 

[acoggan]

What is the highest power for an hour that you've ever seen (not asking the rider's identity)?

The highest 1 h power of which I am aware is the 6.4 W/kg that Peter Keen estimated was produced by Chris Boardman during his 56+ km record performance. Even though power was estimated and not directly measured, I accept this value as reasonably accurate because 1) it is based on extensive testing to establish his power vs. speed relationship when training on the Manchester track (so far fewer unknowns/assumptions than when estimating power based on CdA, mass, Crr, etc.), and 2) it is agrees exactly with what you get based on his reported VO2max (i.e., 90 mL/min/kg), fractional utilization of VO2max (i.e., 90%), and gross efficiency (i.e., 22.6%) as determined in laboratory testing.

 

[acoggan]

do you specifically mean jani's cp5 power ?

No, his power during the final (?) stage of the Tour de Suisse.

blood doping would obscure the file and make it worthless for sound analysis of a clean rider's performance due to uncertainty.

Agreed. But since I'm not using it for that purpose (or for that matter, any purpose) whether he was clean or not is moot.

 

[131313]

I disagree, for two reasons:

1) unless he is regularly performing all-out, pursuit-style efforts in training (which is quite unlikely), he very well could have been underestimating his maximal 5 min power all along, and

2) how "fresh" you are affects the power you can produce over shorter durations (e.g., 5 min) much more than it influences the power you can produce over longer durations (e.g., up the final climb of a long stage).

Actually, you are pretty much agreeing with me, since as I said, hyperbole and shoddy data recording are what come to mind; i.e. I find it really questionable that his true 5MP increased by that big a %.

As far as your second point about fatigue affecting 5MP, it hasn't been my experience that extreme fatigue has affected it to the degree to which you allude. I hit my peak 5MP on the last day of the ToC, and I couldn't imagine being more tired on that day. I can certainly see it affecting it a couple of percent. Maybe you've seen different examples.

What I'm getting at here is that a true increase in 5MP of 10-12% in two weeks seems really implausible to me, regardless of fatigue. I'd be curious if you've seen a single example of someone doing full out efforts of that duration increase by that percentage in two weeks?

If no, suggesting that it's possible by "another method" seems as misguided as the tinfoil hat wearers suggesting it's "the only way". As I said though, we're probably in agreement. It didn't actually happen.

 

[131313]

The highest 1 h power of which I am aware is the 6.4 W/kg that Peter Keen estimated was produced by Chris Boardman during his 56+ km record performance. Even though power was estimated and not directly measured, I accept this value as reasonably accurate because 1) it is based on extensive testing to establish his power vs. speed relationship when training on the Manchester track (so far fewer unknowns/assumptions than when estimating power based on CdA, mass, Crr, etc.), and 2) it is agrees exactly with what you get based on his reported VO2max (i.e., 90 mL/min/kg), fractional utilization of VO2max (i.e., 90%), and gross efficiency (i.e., 22.6%) as determined in laboratory testing.

That didn't answer the question.

What is the highest 1 hour power you've ever seen from an actual file?

 

[acoggan]

What is the highest 1 hour power you've ever seen from an actual file?

Hmmm...offhand, I don't really know (since no performance has exceeded 6.4 W/kg, I haven't needed to revise the power profiling tables, and thus haven't paid all that close attention). I will, though, dig through the files that have been sent to me to see what is actually there.

 

[acoggan]

Actually, you are pretty much agreeing with me, since as I said, hyperbole and shoddy data recording are what come to mind; i.e. I find it really questionable that his true 5MP increased by that big a %.

Yeah, we're not that far apart.

As far as your second point about fatigue affecting 5MP, it hasn't been my experience that extreme fatigue has affected it to the degree to which you allude. I hit my peak 5MP on the last day of the ToC, and I couldn't imagine being more tired on that day. I can certainly see it affecting it a couple of percent. Maybe you've seen different examples.

Many - but then again, I might have viewed things your way before I had significant exposure to track cycling/cyclists (focussing only on road racing is much like thinking about running without considering any of the track-and-field events).

What I'm getting at here is that a true increase in 5MP of 10-12% in two weeks seems really implausible to me, regardless of fatigue. I'd be curious if you've seen a single example of someone doing full out efforts of that duration increase by that percentage in two weeks?

Multiple examples, but really as a consequence of tapering, not a change in training focus (i.e., such individuals were presumably capable of producing such power all along, it was simply being "masked" by cumulative fatigue/muscle damage).