power as dopeometer

Page 3 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Mar 18, 2009
2,553
0
0
goggalor said:
I see two massive outliers at around 400 W. Does each point represent one calculation accompanied by an actual power data file? Either way, on a Tour de France MTF you'll have a bunch of riders unevenly spread from ~450 W and down, so you should be able to spot these kinds of glaring calculation errors.
That would require knowing each rider's actual power output...in which case the estimated values would be irrelevant.
 
May 27, 2012
6,458
0
0
acoggan said:
Practical application is not my concern.
Apparently, neither is providing references for the words and intentions of those you are smearing with your erroneous assertions. "Could" is a big word...and attributing someone explaining the meaning of their words to your having "called" them out is just more evidence of the esteem in which you hold yourself. and it is completely unwarranted good sir.
 
Mar 18, 2009
2,553
0
0
ChewbaccaD said:
Apparently, neither is providing references for the words and intentions of those you are smearing with your erroneous assertions. "Could" is a big word...and attributing someone explaining the meaning of their words to your having "called" them out is just more evidence of the esteem in which you hold yourself. and it is completely unwarranted good sir.
As I said, you really need to go read the entire Science of Sport blog (including the comments section) to fully appreciate matters...but here's a sampling:

"If you directly measure power output on bike during the Tour, and make sure that the setup of those power meters is properly done, then you'll have very reliable data which have very profound implications for physiology. If your power meter shows that you produce 6.6W/kg for 40 minutes, then you're doing something that is almost physiologically impossible - either your VO2max is 100ml/kg, or your efficiency is 27% or higher.

Either way, we can test for that, and clear your name."

IOW, guilty simply on the basis of your performance is clearly Ross's default assumption, no matter how much hand-waving he might make about only tracking trends, etc.

(From http://www.sportsscientists.com/2009/08/performance-analysis-weapon-against.html)
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
does anyone else get the feeling this is going to be like the 'crank length' thread and Coggan its main 'contributor'.......:rolleyes:
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
acoggan said:
As I said, you really need to go read the entire Science of Sport blog (including the comments section) to fully appreciate matters...but here's a sampling:

"If you directly measure power output on bike during the Tour, and make sure that the setup of those power meters is properly done, then you'll have very reliable data which have very profound implications for physiology. If your power meter shows that you produce 6.6W/kg for 40 minutes, then you're doing something that is almost physiologically impossible - either your VO2max is 100ml/kg, or your efficiency is 27% or higher.

Either way, we can test for that, and clear your name."


IOW, guilty simply on the basis of your performance is clearly Ross's default assumption, no matter how much hand-waving he might make about only tracking trends, etc.

(From http://www.sportsscientists.com/2009/08/performance-analysis-weapon-against.html)
The Blue is what you attribute to Tucker - here is the the full text of that 'comment' - rather obvious he is talking about traditional anti-doping testing when the first paragraph is included:
Yes, you're right, but I also said in the post that one has to be sensible and clear in how you attempt to do this, because it can be a very effective means to understand the problems of doping and how testing might be done better.

So I don't see this as an insurmountable problem. If you directly measure power output on bike during the Tour, and make sure that the setup of those power meters is properly done, then you'll have very reliable data which have very profound implications for physiology. If your power meter shows that you produce 6.6W/kg for 40 minutes, then you're doing something that is almost physiologically impossible - either your VO2max is 100ml/kg, or your efficiency is 27% or higher.

Either way, we can test for that, and clear your name. Assuming you as the rider have nothing to hide. It's quite simple to set up a protocol that is "conservative" and gives every benefit of the doubt to the athlete. That's all that's required
 
acoggan said:
As I said, you really need to go read the entire Science of Sport blog (including the comments section) to fully appreciate matters...but here's a sampling:

"If you directly measure power output on bike during the Tour, and make sure that the setup of those power meters is properly done, then you'll have very reliable data which have very profound implications for physiology. If your power meter shows that you produce 6.6W/kg for 40 minutes, then you're doing something that is almost physiologically impossible - either your VO2max is 100ml/kg, or your efficiency is 27% or higher.

Either way, we can test for that, and clear your name."

IOW, guilty simply on the basis of your performance is clearly Ross's default assumption, no matter how much hand-waving he might make about only tracking trends, etc.

(From http://www.sportsscientists.com/2009/08/performance-analysis-weapon-against.html)
What are you claiming?

1) a power output of 6.6 watts/g for 40 min does not necessarily reflect either a V02max of 100 ml/kg or an efficiency of > 27%; or
2) It does, but neither of these values is indicative of doping.

If 1), what V02max or efficiency values do you think would be consistent with that power output? If 2), can you name a single athlete in any sport with either a V02max value or an efficiency this high? If you can’t, wouldn’t you say that doping is the more likely explanation? That's what Ross is saying, and I don't see how anyone could disagree with that conclusion.

I see nothing in that quote that indicates Ross believes that power values should be the basis for a sanction. The test he proposes (though I really don’t see the point of it, unless he believes, as you do I think, that any efficiency value, no matter how high, could not result from doping) is simply “to clear his name”. That is exactly what Sky attempted to do by releasing some of Froome’s power values. No matter what those values had been, they could not have been the basis for a sanction.

You’re claiming that since a power output that high can’t be proven at a very high level of significance to be unattainable except by doping, we shouldn’t conclude that the rider is doping. But I could just as well turn it around and say since a power output that high can’t be proven at even a moderate level of significance to be possible without doping, we shouldn’t conclude that the rider isn’t doping.

You want to err on the side of caution. But since sanctioning the rider is not an issue here, there is no justification for doing this. All we're talking about is which is more likely, doping or not doping. If doping is more likely, then suspicion is completely warranted.
 
May 27, 2012
6,458
0
0
acoggan said:
As I said, you really need to go read the entire Science of Sport blog (including the comments section) to fully appreciate matters...but here's a sampling:

"If you directly measure power output on bike during the Tour, and make sure that the setup of those power meters is properly done, then you'll have very reliable data which have very profound implications for physiology. If your power meter shows that you produce 6.6W/kg for 40 minutes, then you're doing something that is almost physiologically impossible - either your VO2max is 100ml/kg, or your efficiency is 27% or higher.

Either way, we can test for that, and clear your name."

IOW, guilty simply on the basis of your performance is clearly Ross's default assumption, no matter how much hand-waving he might make about only tracking trends, etc.

(From http://www.sportsscientists.com/2009/08/performance-analysis-weapon-against.html)
Thanks for proving my point. You purposefully left out the contextual part of the quote as Dr. M points out. You might understand the science, but your rhetorical skills are horrendous, and your dishonesty is consistently glaring.
 
May 27, 2012
6,458
0
0
Merckx index said:
What are you claiming?

1) a power output of 6.6 watts/g for 40 min does not necessarily reflect either a V02max of 100 ml/kg or an efficiency of > 27%; or
2) It does, but neither of these values is indicative of doping.

If 1), what V02max or efficiency values do you think would be consistent with that power output? If 2), can you name a single athlete in any sport with either a V02max value or an efficiency this high? If you can’t, wouldn’t you say that doping is the more likely explanation? That's what Ross is saying, and I don't see how anyone could disagree with that conclusion.

I see nothing in that quote that indicates Ross believes that power values should be the basis for a sanction. The test he proposes (though I really don’t see the point of it, unless he believes, as you do I think, that any efficiency value, no matter how high, could not result from doping) is simply “to clear his name”. That is exactly what Sky attempted to do by releasing some of Froome’s power values. No matter what those values had been, they could not have been the basis for a sanction.

You’re claiming that since a power output that high can’t be proven at a very high level of significance to be unattainable except by doping, we shouldn’t conclude that the rider is doping. But I could just as well turn it around and say since a power output that high can’t be proven at even a moderate level of significance to be possible without doping, we shouldn’t conclude that the rider isn’t doping.

You want to err on the side of caution. But since sanctioning the rider is not an issue here, there is no justification for doing this. All we're talking about is which is more likely, doping or not doping. If doping is more likely, then suspicion is completely warranted.
This is the real argument being made and Mr. Coggan would do well to recognize that fact and quit creating straw men. His motivations are suspect by continuing to pursue his phantom foe.
 
Jul 10, 2013
326
0
0
No performance, no matter how absurdly superhuman, is indicative of doping to Coggan.

The problem is not the superhuman performance and the VO2max or efficiency outside of the human realm. The problem is his standards for what is indicative of doping.

If you ask him the questions differently, at some point he will admit that a certain performance is superhuman anyway.
I guess the mystery that humans can performance superhuman without doping is one that Coggan will continue to wrestle with.

Or maybe he really believes that given enough time, athletes will improve indefinitely towards infinite VO2max and 100% efficiency.


The question at what point we can sanction an athlete is an entirely different one.
 
Mar 18, 2009
2,553
0
0
Merckx index said:
What are you claiming?

1) a power output of 6.6 watts/g for 40 min does not necessarily reflect either a V02max of 100 ml/kg or an efficiency of > 27%; or
2) It does, but neither of these values is indicative of doping.

If 1), what V02max or efficiency values do you think would be consistent with that power output? If 2), can you name a single athlete in any sport with either a V02max value or an efficiency this high? If you can’t, wouldn’t you say that doping is the more likely explanation? That's what Ross is saying, and I don't see how anyone could disagree with that conclusion.

I see nothing in that quote that indicates Ross believes that power values should be the basis for a sanction. The test he proposes (though I really don’t see the point of it, unless he believes, as you do I think, that any efficiency value, no matter how high, could not result from doping) is simply “to clear his name”. That is exactly what Sky attempted to do by releasing some of Froome’s power values. No matter what those values had been, they could not have been the basis for a sanction.

You’re claiming that since a power output that high can’t be proven at a very high level of significance to be unattainable except by doping, we shouldn’t conclude that the rider is doping. But I could just as well turn it around and say since a power output that high can’t be proven at even a moderate level of significance to be possible without doping, we shouldn’t conclude that the rider isn’t doping.

You want to err on the side of caution. But since sanctioning the rider is not an issue here, there is no justification for doing this. All we're talking about is which is more likely, doping or not doping. If doping is more likely, then suspicion is completely warranted.
So you, like Tucker, are apparently willing to conclude that a rider is a cheat simply because they are faster/more powerful than you personally believe is possible. Sorry, but I can't go there.
 
Mar 18, 2009
2,553
0
0
ChewbaccaD said:
This is the real argument being made and Mr. Coggan would do well to recognize that fact and quit creating straw men. His motivations are suspect by continuing to pursue his phantom foe.
If my argument is a straw man, then why would Tucker believe that an athlete would need to "clear their name"?
 
Mar 18, 2009
2,553
0
0
ChewbaccaD said:
Thanks for proving my point. You purposefully left out the contextual part of the quote as Dr. M points out. You might understand the science, but your rhetorical skills are horrendous, and your dishonesty is consistently glaring.
I quoted the salient portions, and provided the link. I'll leave it up to others to go read everything Tucker has posted (especially a few years ago) and draw their own conclusions.
 
acoggan said:
So you, like Tucker, are apparently willing to conclude that a rider is a cheat simply because they are faster/more powerful than you personally believe is possible. Sorry, but I can't go there.
That is not what MI is saying at all. You are totally distorting his comments. Nowhere does he draw any conclusion that a rider is doping.
 
Jul 10, 2013
326
0
0
Yeah, all Ross Tucker ever said was that power estimates give ideas about trends of doping. Something which everyone embraced when climbing powers were slower.
Also, he said climbing speeds could put suspicion on the fastest climbers because they went near or over the human physiological limit for a clean rider.
This assumes Pantani times were superhuman and EPO-assisted. The later has been obviously true for years and has been vindicated absolutely recently. As for the former, do some PhD math.
So when Contador went up really really fast, that put suspicions on him. Which then again were vindicated when he tested positive for blood doping. He of course dodged it because the burden of proof is too high. So I guess Coggan thinks he didn't. It was just a polluted vitamin supplement, right? CAS said so so that makes it true, even though Contador has said that surely wasn't it.

What does a PhD amount to when it makes you appear this dense? I mean, obviously it's just a facade, right?



What does an athlete do, Bolt, when based on performance it is obvious, rightly or falsely so, to every spectator that he is doping but he doesn't test positive? Is that an acceptable scenario for said athlete?
 
acoggan said:
So you, like Tucker, are apparently willing to conclude that a rider is a cheat simply because they are faster/more powerful than you personally believe is possible. Sorry, but I can't go there.
Again, turn it around: You are willing to believe a rider is clean simply because you personally think it conceivable that someone, somewhere on the planet can put out the power values he does because of natural endowment.

Your bias is very clear. You think if there is even the tiniest possibility that a rider might be clean, he must be declared so. Again, that kind of erring on the side of caution may be appropriate for sanctioning, it is not appropriate for a discussion of what someone actually believes. It's conceivable OJ did not commit those murders, and so he got off (on criminal charges). That does not mean that people should personally conclude that he was not guilty. The appropriate standard for this kind of discussion is not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, it's preponderance of evidence.

If my argument is a straw man, then why would Tucker believe that an athlete would need to "clear their name"?
I covered that in my earlier post, too. If everyone should believe Froome is clean on the basis of existing evidence, why would Sky let a scientist examine Froome's power values? What was the point of that exercise if not an attempt to "clear his name"?
 
Aug 3, 2010
843
0
0
Merckx index said:
Again, turn it around: You are willing to believe a rider is clean simply because you personally think it conceivable that someone, somewhere on the planet can put out the power values he does because of natural endowment.
Andy Coggan is not a coach, as he himself has admitted, he lives and works in the theoretical world of academia. No theories= no grant money. The guy is a tool. Yes I know him personally. The best thing to do is simply ignore him. He will argue his nonsense until the cows come home. He is one of the worst trolls on this forum.

Yeah, I know mods, you have given me infractions before, for saying the same thing. I really don't care.
 
I think 10W/Kg sustained for an hour would be clear proof of something being wrong, as would 9, 8 and 7. Much below that and the line gets fuzzy, and essentially becomes useless to consider.

A max power output of 5 w/Kg however is not proof of everything being above board.

Whilst I find the tracking of power outputs, to be interesting academically, and useful for looking at things in the long term. Labeling a ride or rider as clean or dirty based on a calculation from a single ride, or race is beyond the scope of this tool.
 
May 27, 2012
6,458
0
0
acoggan said:
As I said, you really need to go read the entire Science of Sport blog (including the comments section) to fully appreciate matters...but here's a sampling:

"If you directly measure power output on bike during the Tour, and make sure that the setup of those power meters is properly done, then you'll have very reliable data which have very profound implications for physiology. If your power meter shows that you produce 6.6W/kg for 40 minutes, then you're doing something that is almost physiologically impossible - either your VO2max is 100ml/kg, or your efficiency is 27% or higher.

Either way, we can test for that, and clear your name."

IOW, guilty simply on the basis of your performance is clearly Ross's default assumption, no matter how much hand-waving he might make about only tracking trends, etc.

(From http://www.sportsscientists.com/2009/08/performance-analysis-weapon-against.html)
No matter how much hand-waving you do, when you read the totality of his words, his point is clear and in no way does your characterization reflect it. I guess your reading comprehension skills are inadequate for such a complex idea...:rolleyes:

You started this thread with a flawed, erroneous point and you keep flogging the same donkey. I think I'll quit interacting because feeding trolls is stupid.
 
May 27, 2012
6,458
0
0
acoggan said:
If my argument is a straw man, then why would Tucker believe that an athlete would need to "clear their name"?
Your reading comprehension skills are apparently inadequate as my reference was to the idea that there is a mass of people calling for doping sanctions based on SRM data. Look up "straw man" and then reference your posts if you need practice discerning contextual clues that lead to the inherent meaning of text.
 
May 27, 2012
6,458
0
0
acoggan said:
I quoted the salient portions, and provided the link. I'll leave it up to others to go read everything Tucker has posted (especially a few years ago) and draw their own conclusions.
You did no such thing. You selected a passage that, without context, appeared to add weight to your point. Unfortunately for you, you don't have to be a scientist to know how to read, so the rest of us picked up on your BS.
 
May 27, 2012
6,458
0
0
spetsa said:
Andy Coggan is not a coach, as he himself has admitted, he lives and works in the theoretical world of academia. No theories= no grant money. The guy is a tool. Yes I know him personally. The best thing to do is simply ignore him. He will argue his nonsense until the cows come home. He is one of the worst trolls on this forum.

Yeah, I know mods, you have given me infractions before, for saying the same thing. I really don't care.
This......
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY