Official lance armstrong thread, part 2 (from september 2012)

[SavageKiwi]

Winner! Winner! Turkey dinner!

No. acoggan brings Boardman up a few times when he's not defending Wiggins as an example of what's possible physiologically. I think Krebs Cycle does too - when he's not defending Wiggins either.

That graphs were good. The conclusion was pure fanboi.

As far as my thoughts on the data goes, they evolved as i was looking at various performances, and eventually it became clear that in order to return to cycling around 1999, and to be able to win, there was no choice, as it appears that all outstanding winning performances were unnatural in that period. I did not think that this was going to be the case going in. So while I disagree with it, I understand it from a practical/operational standpoint. If you consider this to be ``fanboi'' , then it is what it is!

 

[frenchfry]

Thanks, I thought that interview was pretty good, but look at the stuff we are getting in Australia. This article was also published on sbscycling central.

This is a top notch academic publication. I don't know where this lady was getting her info from.

http://theconversation.edu.au/punishing-doping-athletes-isnt-a-long-term-solution-9387

I'm Lance Armstrong, and I approve this message.

Paid for by Liestrong

 

[the big ring]

Except that 1990+ the line is almost 7 km/hr above the 1970-1990 line!! From that I concluded that the introduction of oxygen vector doping allowed the riders to recover from hard efforts in a dramatic fashion. That is, they can go hard and fast each day, every day.

John Swanson

No no no no no.

This year's winner can ride a 4km IP in 4:15. During that effort he generates more power from aerobic sources than anaerobic. He is a multiple world champion and gold medalist at 4km races.

Surely you can join the dots and see he will win GTs at age 33 after doing sweet FA on the road.

What kind of science are you peddling here!?

Boardman killed the IP due to his new, aerodynamic track bike.

 

[BroDeal]

I completely disagree. Using a simple model, I calculated that the total power absorbed by frames is on the order of a hundred milliwatts when a cyclical input of 400 Watts is used. To be ultra conservative, let's call it 0.5 Watts. That's 0.1% of total input. The difference *between* frames is of course much less than that. At best, let's say a stiff frame is twice as efficient as a flexible frame. That would be a savings of ~200 mW. More realistically, it's well under a 100 mW. That's 0.025% of total input.

Compare that to tires, which absorb ~20% of total input.

And then there's the old "sanity check". How do you use race results to isolate performance differences due to equipment?

I chose two races (Milan San Remo and Paris Roubaix) which have not altered their courses dramatically in the last 50 years. Both are one day races, which eliminates the variables of recovery, nutrition, rest, etc. They also are very long races which emphasize time to exhaustion and sustainable power output rather than peak FTP, etc. If you take a look at the winning times and separate them by decade, there is no significant difference between the groups. There is also a flat trendline and a fairly large but stable residuals (deviation from the mean).

From that I concluded that road conditions and equipment have had little to no effect on race outcomes for the last fifty years. In other words, given a good team Sean Kelly would still be winning classics in this era.

FYI, I also analyzed Tour de France results. That was an eye opener. If you plot average speed for the winner versus stage length you get a nice linear response. 1970 to 1990 all falls along the same line with very small residuals. 1990 to present, you get the exact same linear response with identical slope...

Except that 1990+ the line is almost 7 km/hr above the 1970-1990 line!! From that I concluded that the introduction of oxygen vector doping allowed the riders to recover from hard efforts in a dramatic fashion. That is, they can go hard and fast each day, every day.

John Swanson

Could you post the graphs?

 

[ScienceIsCool]

How the heck do you attach photos that are on a hard drive rather than a web server?

John Swanson

 

[StyrbjornSterki]

You said, that cycling is still much faster and dirtier than in the 80s. Data does not show this. It shows that there was unnatural jump from the 90s, but times during last couple of yearas are only slitley faster than in the 80s. If faster at all.

The slowest post-Pharmstrong race (2007) was 0.32 kph faster than the fastest race of the 80s (1988) and faster than all but three pre-Pharmstrong races. The average speed of all the post-Pharmstrong races (2006- ) has been 3.23 kph faster than the average speed of the 80s. The last couple of TdFs have been about 0.9 kph faster than 1988, and also were about 150 km longer.

Over a 3400 km race, a 0.9 kph advantage results in about a two hour lead. Sixty-two riders finished less than 120 minutes off the CG in the 2012 TdF.

 

[the big ring]

As far as my thoughts on the data goes, they evolved as i was looking at various performances, and eventually it became clear that in order to return to cycling around 1999, and to be able to win, there was no choice, as it appears that all outstanding winning performances were unnatural in that period. I did not think that this was going to be the case going in. So while I disagree with it, I understand it from a practical/operational standpoint. If you consider this to be ``fanboi'' , then it is what it is!

Sorry but I disagree.

The data are consistent with Armstrong, upon his return, not doing anything obviously different from other elite cyclists in the TdF, though obviously, he just did it a little better. This is the “level playing field” scenario.

This "level playing field" theory has been torn apart pretty well by Tyler's book and other people who know wtf was really going on. Suffice to say, Armstrong agreed to race the Giro, and Zomegan agreed to not do retrospective testing.

To close, the data that has been analyzed in this work points to the combined natural ability, race preparation and recovery of post-1999 Armstrong being consistent with, but slightly better than, other elite cyclists competing at that time. The strength of Armstrong’s performances in the collective events suggests that his preparation and recovery methods were shared with his team-mates.

The data know nothing about natural ability or race preparation.

If titles are stripped from Armstrong, then, in fairness, similar investigations should be launched against Indurain, as his performances have similarities to those of Armstrong. This could be generalized to all TdF winners since 1990.

If titles are stripped from a currently competing professional athlete (ignoring the other 4 accused), similar investigations should be launched against a rider who retired 14 years ago (SOL error) and for whom there is no evidence he coerced others to dope. The same investigation should be conducted against athletes whether there is evidence or not.

Stripping Armstrong of his titles, and awarding them to the runner ups, has the same problem discussed in the previous bullet-point. Given the data as presented here, and the fact that multiple members of his teams have admitted to using IPETs, it seems that there is high likelihood that the runner’s ups (through many placings in the GC) were also using IPETs.

Strawman. Noone is suggesting the titles are given to someone else. Never have been. Ever.


These "conclusions" are not data-driven. They are fanboyism, which is fine, but don't dress them up like they are anything else.

 

[D-Queued]

How the heck do you attach photos that are on a hard drive rather than a web server?

John Swanson

Somebody here can surely help with that.

Dave.

 

[BroDeal]

How the heck do you attach photos that are on a hard drive rather than a web server?

John Swanson

The easy way is to get a Photobucket (or similar service) account, upload the images, then hotlink to them.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

How the heck do you attach photos that are on a hard drive rather than a web server?

John Swanson

I use tinypic.com

 

[DirtyWorks]

And it should be faster if you consider advances in technology and training. Of course that's an argument often used to distract from doping practices, but still it is true.

I've personally experienced the transition from steel to aluminum and then to carbon frames, for instance, and of course the difference in power output between those is huge(!). Moreover, exercise science has come a long way since the late 90s, too.

@GalicHo: Correlation and causation are not the same thing. Speed depends on many more variables than just doping.

There have been numerous attempts to shift the focus away from doping with ridiculous equipment/training claims. Several years later, it's all found to be lies to cover cheating. John's reply covers all of it. Please stop now.

 

[SavageKiwi]

I completely disagree. Using a simple model, I calculated that the total power absorbed by frames is on the order of a hundred milliwatts when a cyclical input of 400 Watts is used. To be ultra conservative, let's call it 0.5 Watts. That's 0.1% of total input. The difference *between* frames is of course much less than that. At best, let's say a stiff frame is twice as efficient as a flexible frame. That would be a savings of ~200 mW. More realistically, it's well under a 100 mW. That's 0.025% of total input.

Compare that to tires, which absorb ~20% of total input.

And then there's the old "sanity check". How do you use race results to isolate performance differences due to equipment?

I chose two races (Milan San Remo and Paris Roubaix) which have not altered their courses dramatically in the last 50 years. Both are one day races, which eliminates the variables of recovery, nutrition, rest, etc. They also are very long races which emphasize time to exhaustion and sustainable power output rather than peak FTP, etc. If you take a look at the winning times and separate them by decade, there is no significant difference between the groups. There is also a flat trendline and a fairly large but stable residuals (deviation from the mean).

From that I concluded that road conditions and equipment have had little to no effect on race outcomes for the last fifty years. In other words, given a good team Sean Kelly would still be winning classics in this era.

FYI, I also analyzed Tour de France results. That was an eye opener. If you plot average speed for the winner versus stage length you get a nice linear response. 1970 to 1990 all falls along the same line with very small residuals. 1990 to present, you get the exact same linear response with identical slope...

Except that 1990+ the line is almost 7 km/hr above the 1970-1990 line!! From that I concluded that the introduction of oxygen vector doping allowed the riders to recover from hard efforts in a dramatic fashion. That is, they can go hard and fast each day, every day.

John Swanson

John, you might be interested in
http://www.phys.washington.edu/users/savage/Cycling/LookingAtTheData/AIC.html

 

[Radway]

... might be interested in
http://www.phys.washington.edu/users/savage/Cycling/LookingAtTheData/AIC.html

Here is the executive summary:

In the "So what can one conclude" section, "4.The data are consistent with the assertions made by LeMond regarding doping in cycling."

The author's bottom line states "The strength of Armstrong’s performances in the collective events suggests that his preparation and recovery methods were shared with his team-mates."

 

[DirtyWorks]

John, you might be interested in
http://www.phys.washington.edu/users/savage/Cycling/LookingAtTheData/AIC.html

You know you should have included Ed Coyle's "research" too.

The paper's introduction is the infamous "I'm sorry for you" B.S. Do you think there's a little bias already? I know, I know. No way...

And then recycling the "They all did it"/"Best among dopers" failed argument with this quote, " a lack of understanding of the environment in which Armstrong was competing. "

And then this gem, "I have assembled data from the TdF and other events and attempted to present them in a way that illustrates interesting trends that I attribute to the Natural Ability, Preparation, Recovery (NAPR) " Yeah.. That's scientific.. Again, this has been absolutely discredited.

" Further, I am not claiming to use new techniques, and in fact, I have employed relatively unsophisticated statistical analyses throughout." ... in another attempt to reinforce the Wonderboy myth.

I ask you once again to please stop now. Your faith/belief in the Wonderboy myth is unfounded.

 

[KingsMountain]

I ask you once again to please stop now.

And I ask you to please stop. SavageKiwi's posts refer to actual data, and this thread and its predecessor are sorely lacking in data or other objective content.

That SavageKiwi reaches a conclusion which is (to me, and apparently you) unsupported by his data doesn't diminish the value of the data or its presentation.

 

[reginagold]

Well LA continuing to mock the ban - he's partnered with a Triathlon in San Diego and will compete there in Oct. All about the good he does for US military types. Brilliant strategy - in US you can be against certain wars, but you'd better not be against the soldiers, particularly the SEALS that brought down Bin Laden.

 

[pastronef]

http://mobile.twitter.com/lancearmstrong/status/246376128166637569?p=v

Lance tweeted his cell phone number

 

[SavageKiwi]

You know you should have included Ed Coyle's "research" too.

The paper's introduction is the infamous "I'm sorry for you" B.S. Do you think there's a little bias already? I know, I know. No way...

And then recycling the "They all did it"/"Best among dopers" failed argument with this quote, " a lack of understanding of the environment in which Armstrong was competing. "

And then this gem, "I have assembled data from the TdF and other events and attempted to present them in a way that illustrates interesting trends that I attribute to the Natural Ability, Preparation, Recovery (NAPR) " Yeah.. That's scientific.. Again, this has been absolutely discredited.

" Further, I am not claiming to use new techniques, and in fact, I have employed relatively unsophisticated statistical analyses throughout." ... in another attempt to reinforce the Wonderboy myth.

I ask you once again to please stop now. Your faith/belief in the Wonderboy myth is unfounded.

I'll look for Coyles research - didn't know about it. Thanks.

Can you elaborate on your ``eye roll'' please - what aspect of this has been discredited and why.
Thanks
Martin

 

[BroDeal]

Just picked this off a tri forum. Promotion for Brad Kearns' book, How Lance Does It. Try not to laugh.

"Brad Kearns has a refreshing perspective on peak performance that he captures eloquently in his writing. While being intensely competitive and focused on winning is great, Kearns reminds us that our greatest rewards come when we are motivated by pure love of the experience."
--Lance Armstrong
What is the secret to someone like Lance Armstrong’s consistent and phenomenal success? Is it something you’re born with, or is it something that can be acquired, developed, and perfected? Author Brad Kearns observes four success factors in Armstrong that can provide inspiration and direction to help you live like a champion every day.
No magic tricks, silly acronyms, mind games, or gimmicks. How Lance Does It captures the pure essence of Armstrong from every angle and shows you the secrets for harnessing your own inner strength in every challenge you face, from business to parenting to stress management.
"’Lance hates losing, but is not afraid of it.’" This fearless approach gave Lance the freedom to take the risks required to achieve peak performance and to continue to seek improvement even while at the top of his sport."
--from How Lance Does It
Learn to "Live Strong" every day of your life
How does Lance Armstrong do it? One of the greatest athletes of all time has faced monumental obstacles on his journey to the pinnacle of the sports world as the record seven-time Tour de France champion. While his genetic gifts and killer instinct are superior, it's his exuberance for life that sets him apart as an athlete, celebrity spokesperson, and international icon for hope and living strong. How Lance Does It is an entertaining and powerful handbook for applying the secrets of a champion to your own peak performance goals.
Author Brad Kearns, a longtime friend of Armstrong and former champion professional triathlete, offers a unique insider's perspective. In this intimate and inspiring book he gives you direct access to the four success factors that Armstrong embodied as the world's greatest cyclist:
Positive Attitude: Overcome difficult circumstances and maintain a winning environment by interpreting your past experiences and present circumstances in a positive light.
Clarity of Purpose: Develop the deep commitment and focus needed to align your behavior and the pursuit of your goals with your ultimate life purpose.
Specialized Intelligence: Cultivate your smarts by learning and improving from mistakes, making intuitive decisions, and adopting a big-picture perspective on life challenges.
Pure Confidence: Develop a belief in your abilities that transcends tangible results by connecting with your most powerful motivator--a pure love of the pursuit of peak performance. In doing so, you will awaken your inner strength and banish the fear of failure forever.
By understanding the factors that make Lance Armstrong a champion and applying them to your own personal and professional goals, you can realize the highest expression of your talents--whether it's in a bike race or the rat race, in the boardroom or the living room--and cultivate an unbeatable joy for living every day to the fullest.
About the Author
Brad Kearns has been a friend of Lance Armstrong since their days as teammates on the pro triathlon circuit in the late 1980s. A noted speaker, author, and coach, he has published four books on health and fitness, including Breakthrough Triathlon Training, and numerous articles for leading endurance publications worldwide. He lives in Auburn, California, with his wife, Tracy, and two children, Jack and Maria.

 

[D-Queued]

http://mobile.twitter.com/lancearmstrong/status/246376128166637569?p=v

Lance tweeted his cell phone number

Old news.

Not his cell number.

As such, this really belongs in the 'Lance as a bully' thread.

He also missed whoever his intended target was. (Tyler?)

Even more reason it should be in the 'Lance as a bully' thread.

A quick check on the area code will reveal that this is a British Columbia, Canada number.

Dave.

 

[the big ring]

http://mobile.twitter.com/lancearmstrong/status/246376128166637569?p=v

Lance tweeted his cell phone number

It was a week ago, and is the number of someone who was hassling him about being a doped up 71ml/m/kg loser.

 

[the big ring]

I'll look for Coyles research - didn't know about it. Thanks.

Can you elaborate on your ``eye roll'' please - what aspect of this has been discredited and why.
Thanks
Martin

I discredited it: http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=1027555&postcount=696

Did you mean why? Or how?

IF you really meant why, it's because half the population will swallow your conclusions as fact, when they are patently misleading, misguided or downright false.

 

[trailrunner]

Just picked this off a tri forum. Promotion for Brad Kearns' book, How Lance Does It. Try not to laugh.

"Brad Kearns has a refreshing perspective on peak performance that he captures eloquently in his writing.

In this intimate and inspiring book he gives you direct access to the four success factors that Armstrong embodied as the world's greatest cyclist:

I thought the four success factors were BB, Edgar, TUEs, and bribes.

The rest of the blurb sounds like something for Self magazine or Oprah.

 

[Tinman]

Well LA continuing to mock the ban - he's partnered with a Triathlon in San Diego and will compete there in Oct. All about the good he does for US military types. Brilliant strategy - in US you can be against certain wars, but you'd better not be against the soldiers, particularly the SEALS that brought down Bin Laden.

Here we go again. LA now to tap into the "US military" vein. A bit like cancer. Everyone either has one or knows one. Presumably also connects well to target audience demographics. I bet you LA has done his market research and knows very well where his support base is. Who the likely people are that are going to stick by him. A bit like Romney's conclusions on the Obama voters that came out in the media yesterday "There are 47% of people who will vote for the president no matter what..."

 

[trailrunner]

Some of this is getting close to home for me. I grew up in the town where the superfrog is. That's an old race, that started back in the days that triathlon started in San Diego when triathlon was a low-key thing. It used to be a little home-town race, but now it looks like it's gone full-tilt slick with promotion. I guess they finally realized that there were some big dollars to be made from the yuppies doing triathlon.

Now I live back near where the Rev3 Maryland race will be. It's at Centenial Lake, where the Columbia tri is held. I first did that race 15 years ago when I could sign up a month or two before the race. Now it's sold out six months before the race. Rev3's website is slick, and is going after the cancer angle big time. We used to think that the TNTers were bad, but now it's happening across the board with triathlon.

Speaking of the military connection, I did the Eagleman 1/2 IM in 2000 (also in MD), I believe. Pat Tillman did the race that year. I beat him, not because I was a better athlete, but because he did it on a mountain bike and hadn't really trained for a triathlon, and because he was just out having fun. At the finish line, they interviewed him, and I was struck by what a humble and upstanding guy he was.

Triathlon is getting slicker and slicker. It's not a race anymore - it's a life-changing chance to save the world and feel good about yourself. And in the process, the promoters are pocketing a lot of money.

Speaking of which, I wonder what kind of appearance fees Armstrong is getting for doing these events?