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

[buckwheat]

Sorry to b-u-t-t in your conversation with someone else, but if you're a "good scientist", I suggest you stop bickering with these people and press onto important matters. I was curious to see the 9 W/kg reference you made to earlier. Also, lets discuss power to weight ratio in the "General" section...I was hoping to get your thoughts and opinions there.

Right, because it't pretty conclusive that the evidence Juliet Macur is reporting on supports the argument that doping is rampant in the Armstrong universe.

 

[acoggan]

Sorry to b-u-t-t in your conversation with someone else, but if you're a "good scientist", I suggest you stop bickering with these people

What you call "bickering" I call honing my thinking and writing skills by engaging in a vigorous debate.

and press onto important matters. I was curious to see the 9 W/kg reference you made to earlier. Also, lets discuss power to weight ratio in the "General" section...I was hoping to get your thoughts and opinions there.

What makes that (closely related) topic any more important than the one being discussed here?

 

[buckwheat]

That may be the issue you have been discussing, but it most certainly is not the issue I have been discussing. The issue that I have been discussing is whether or not you can estimate both actual power output and absolute physiological limits with sufficient accuracy and precision for this approach to be useful as an anti-doping measure in the context of other anti-doping efforts. In my opinion, you cannot.



That is not my position in the least.



Now who is being "dismissive"? Your next step is to trot out the old line about "sorry, I'm done debating with you, I've got better things to do".

You're an expert in power calculations. I'm not. You've given your expert testimony in this area. It's a very small part of the doping issue. Doping is what we discuss in the clinic.

When you step down from the witness stand you are dismissed. I don't believe the judges you were talking about in a previous post would tolerate a monologue, and being you don't have any other assertions/opinions regarding doping in the pro peloton, what do you want to do here?

 

[acoggan]

it't pretty conclusive that the evidence Juliet Macur is reporting on supports the argument that doping is rampant in the Armstrong universe.

Doping is rampant in sports, period. As a parent, though, I am far more concerned about that taking place at the high school and often even junior high school level than what takes place in professional cycling.

 

[acoggan]

You're an expert in power calculations. I'm not. You've given your expert testimony in this area. It's a very small part of the doping issue. Doping is what we discuss in the clinic.

And you will note that the only times that I have posted here are when the topic of discussion is something about which I have specific insight or knowledge.

When you step down from the witness stand you are dismissed. I don't believe the judges you were talking about in a previous post would tolerate a monologue

So you're now the judge and feel it is necessary to cut off my monologue?

, and being you don't have any other assertions/opinions regarding doping in the pro peloton, what do you want to do here?

Whatever I damn well please.

 

[buckwheat]

Doping is rampant in sports, period. As a parent, though, I am far more concerned about that taking place at the high school and often even junior high school level than what takes place in professional cycling.

I'm sure you're a very good parent!

Thank you Mr. Coggan.

 

[buckwheat]

Whatever I damn well please.

That's what I'm talking about.

Now if we can only have this conversation in a bar over beers.

 

[Cozy Beehive]

What you call "bickering" I call honing my thinking and writing skills by engaging in a vigorous debate.
What makes that (closely related) topic any more important than the one being discussed here?

The problem is, all other 1000 members in the clinic are "honing" their skills along with you. What happens then is that a good topic stretches to unnecessary proportions and by the 20th post, its all just bickering. So I would say, go right ahead, hone your writing and debating skills on the internet, but you maybe also putting your reputation on the line.

 

[buckwheat]

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.

The problem is, all other 1000 members in the clinic are "honing" their skills along with you. What happens then is that a good topic stretches to unnecessary proportions and by the 20th post, its all just bickering. So I would say, go right ahead, hone your writing and debating skills on the internet, but you maybe also putting your reputation on the line.

Yeah, I said this 10 pages ago. It's not just me here.

PS, that's one good thing about having no reputation or a negative rep....

 

[Parrot23]

edit: As far as I can see, the people who love cycling the most on this forum are all the people that want doping gone from the pro peloton. Wtf is wrong with that? What is there to hate about honesty, sportsmanship and ethical behaviour? The real "haters" out there are the people that are Lance fanboys and doping apologists who would rather turn a blind eye to the dishonest reality of professional sport (not just cycling), rather than see the truth come out and have a clean level playing field.

I think there is "philosophical" difference in point of view here, if we can call it that, which is intractable (re Cozy Beehive's pt. on the butting of heads).

I may be wrong but I think Coggan's personal philosophy is akin to Ayn Rand's (the pursuit of self-interest and performance "objectively", in this case in the peloton), which in the case of doping may fit awkwardly with commonly accepted societal norms of broader obligations/responsibilities beyond the self alone. He acknowledges (or accepts) the doping as ceterus paribus as is, an assumption that no one in the clinic will accept, including me.

Andrew, is your personal "philosophy" that of Ayn Rand?

(Here's a trivial Rand quote from Wikipedia to give you an idea: ""I am not primarily an advocate of capitalism, but of egoism; and I am not primarily an advocate of egoism, but of reason. If one recognizes the supremacy of reason and applies it consistently, all the rest follows.")

Reason in the pursuit of "objective" self interest, and the entire debate follows because the clinic thinks self-interest (and the use of "reason" singlemindedly in it's pursuit) is trumped by broader concerns....

 

[acoggan]

The problem is, all other 1000 members in the clinic are "honing" their skills along with you. What happens then is that a good topic stretches to unnecessary proportions and by the 20th post, its all just bickering.

Welcome to the internet?

So I would say, go right ahead, hone your writing and debating skills on the internet, but you maybe also putting your reputation on the line.

Based on, e.g., my h index, my reputation seems to be doing just fine, thank you very much.

 

[acoggan]

I think there is "philosophical" difference in point of view here, if we can call it that, which is intractable (re Cozy Beehive's pt. on the butting of heads).

I may be wrong but I think Coggan's personal philosophy is akin to Ayn Rand's (the pursuit of self-interest and performance "objectively", in this case in the peloton), which in the case of doping may fit awkwardly with commonly accepted societal norms of broader obligations/responsibilities beyond the self alone. He acknowledges (or accepts) the doping as ceterus paribus as is, an assumption that no one in the clinic will accept, including me.

Andrew, is your personal "philosophy" that of Ayn Rand?

(Here's a trivial Rand quote from Wikipedia to give you an idea: ""I am not primarily an advocate of capitalism, but of egoism; and I am not primarily an advocate of egoism, but of reason. If one recognizes the supremacy of reason and applies it consistently, all the rest follows.")

Reason in the pursuit of "objective" self interest, and the entire debate follows because the clinic thinks self-interest (and the use of "reason" singlemindedly in it's pursuit) is trumped by broader concerns....

I'm sorry, you'll have to refresh my memory - how is it again that you justify making the gigantic leap from my position on a specific issue to drawing conclusions about my personal philosophy?

 

[Parrot23]

It's the possible reason why there can be no agreement with you in the clinic on the broader implications of any specific topic, fundamentally speaking.

Your phraseology and deportment is that of an Ayn Randian. Hey, it's free country, I don't mind, but don't expect a genuine dialogue, a meeting of minds, with those with incommensurable values in this little society called "the clinic". And the latter's values are largely correct on the big matters....

Are you an Ayn Randian, or not? YES or NO. Man up.

 

[CycloErgoSum]

I'm sorry, you'll have to refresh my memory - how is it again that you justify making the gigantic leap from my position on a specific issue to drawing conclusions about my personal philosophy?

Well, a few pages ago you said you weren't altruistic, which is the opposite of egoism.

Instead of being coy and having us guess, why don't you tell us where you stand morally?

 

[Realist]

Well if all else remained equal and Lance farted a jet of high powered gas out his ar$e then it would be advantageous aswell.

What is the point in saying that something would be advantageous if it simply doesn't occur?

This is why we're talking at cross purposes. The point of saying something would be advantageous if it doesn't occur is to test the model one is working from and ones understanding thereof. Andy (and myself) made no statement about the likelihood of the explanation having significant explanatory power in the context of athletic performance. It's just a style of talking about things and I still don't see the problem.

You are missing the point and it goes back to making completely unscientific statements bordering on outright lies in order to perpetuate the myth that LA was physiologically superior to his competitors and this is the reason why he was so dominant as opposed to having been a doper. Ed Coyle was called in as an expert witness in the SCA court case and testified as much. It is a big deal IMO because it gets to the heart of the matter (sorry about the pun), which is basically about honesty in the end.

I find Coyle's explanation for Lance's superiority unsatisfying but I don't see the discussions of Max HR as tying directly to that.

edit: As far as I can see, the people who love cycling the most on this forum are all the people that want doping gone from the pro peloton. Wtf is wrong with that? What is there to hate about honesty, sportsmanship and ethical behaviour? The real "haters" out there are the people that are Lance fanboys and doping apologists who would rather turn a blind eye to the dishonest reality of professional sport (not just cycling), rather than see the truth come out and have a clean level playing field.

I am neither a fanboy, nor an apologist. You assume I am because I don't agree that we should fly off the rails because a scientist is making technically correct but slightly irritating claims. I am open about my views on this. I think Armstrong doped. I think the evidence against him is close to overwhelming. I hope the sport gets cleaned up from the top down. It doesn't have to be either you're with us or you're against us. Let Andy have fun with his models and aggravate people occasionally. It ain't no thang.

Edited for clarity

 

[Tim_sleepless]

"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)."

Note the 15-20% range in the estimate of the required VO2max...and that's for running, where variations in wind, pace, terrain, etc., have less impact on the certainty of any such estimates.

What I noted was you happily proposing for discussion a calculated variable with significant uncertainly, when at the end of the the day the only thing that could be said with certainty was how fast the runner completed the marathon.

 

[Boeing]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/11/sports/cycling/11climb.html



As with many of these articles - nothing new for us here but for the NY Times and casual fans almost all of it will be news to them.

this is a good point. and a good article.

Have you ever tried to explain to casual fans why it is you feel Lance is guilty?

I have and it is a tough road

articles like this can create doubt and bridge the gap.

 

[lean mean &green]

Doping is rampant in sports, period. As a parent, though, I am far more concerned about that taking place at the high school and often even junior high school level than what takes place in professional cycling.

you can't be THAT stupid.

professional athletes don't model behaviors that are often copied by impressionable adolescents who idealize them or anything. no, that NEVER happens. the two are completely unrelated.

 

[acoggan]

you can't be THAT stupid.

And yet others got all bent out of shape because I made a comment about "...the level of discussion on this forum".

professional athletes don't model behaviors that are often copied by impressionable adolescents who idealize them or anything. no, that NEVER happens. the two are completely unrelated.

That may be your position, but it isn't mine. I just realize that the best approach to keeping my kids away from drugs is to focus my energies locally.

(BTW, according to surveys body image/appearance, not performance, is often the most important factor driving use of, e.g., anabolic steroids...and I don't know of many pre-teens/teenagers who would admit to wanting to look like a pro cyclist.)

 

[buckwheat]

And yet others got all bent out of shape because I made a comment about "...the level of discussion on this forum".



That may be your position, but it isn't mine. I just realize that the best approach to keeping my kids away from drugs is to focus my energies locally.

(BTW, according to surveys body image/appearance, not performance, is often the most important factor driving use of, e.g., anabolic steroids...and I don't know of many pre-teens/teenagers who would admit to wanting to look like a pro cyclist.)

This is some funny stuff. Distractions, evasions, etc. etc......

So, do you think pervasive doping is a widespread problem in professional cycling or not?

 

[acoggan]

What I noted was you happily proposing for discussion a calculated variable with significant uncertainly, when at the end of the the day the only thing that could be said with certainty was how fast the runner completed the marathon.

Did you also note the difference between taking advantage of a teaching moment:

http://forum.slowtwitch.com/gforum.cgi?post=2191177#2191177

versus proposing that governing bodies in sport officially use a similar approach to help police dopers/doping?

 

[acoggan]

do you think pervasive doping is a widespread problem in professional cycling or not?

Have you not been following along? I stated very early in this thread that at least some, and probably many, professional cyclists engage/have engaged in doping. Much more recently, I pointed out that doping is rampant in all sports. (For example, in an anonymous survey 2/3s of the US Powerlifting team admitted to doping at one time or another.)

 

[Tim_sleepless]

Have you not been following along? I stated very early in this thread that at least some, and probably many, professional cyclists engage/have engaged in doping.

Steady on now, that's crazy talk.

 

[acoggan]

Well, a few pages ago you said you weren't altruistic, which is the opposite of egoism.

No, I stated that if I had been more altruistic, I would have become a physician instead of an exercise physiologist. I don't think you can possibly look at all the information/time/help that I have given away over the years and conclude that I'm not altruistic to at least some degree.

Instead of being coy and having us guess, why don't you tell us where you stand morally?

On any particular question, or in general?

If the latter, can you make it a multiple choice question? It has been far too long since I took philosophy to be able to properly classify my general outlook.

 

[mastersracer]

It's the possible reason why there can be no agreement with you in the clinic on the broader implications of any specific topic, fundamentally speaking.

Your phraseology and deportment is that of an Ayn Randian. Hey, it's free country, I don't mind, but don't expect a genuine dialogue, a meeting of minds, with those with incommensurable values in this little society called "the clinic". And the latter's values are largely correct on the big matters....

Are you an Ayn Randian, or not? YES or NO. Man up.

Maybe the debate can do without the sophomoric Randian analysis. Why do you all feel Coggan is somehow duty-bound to have ANY beliefs about Armstrong, or even doping in professional cycling in general? The fact that you all seem so obsessed that he doesn't care about that issue seems awfully puerile.