Reason for Lemond's decline

[runninboy]

Without getting emotional, I don't think so. The coach isn't a friend of mine, but I will say this - he is in a position to know, and had no reason to make the story up. He is in his 60's, not some immature guy who wants attention.
Who he coaches these days has more to do with $$, he has done enough hard yards. Who cares if some of them ride in speedos? The world champions didn't.
QUOTE]

Ok we have established that this coach cares about the$$ first.
He can bolster his business by making his rep bigger than what it is by claiming insider info. Even Eddie B who would be the foremost coach in the US during Lemonds era would have no knowledge of what Lemond did in his room.
Just think about it your coach/friend claims insider knowledge that no one else has. Lets have a hypothetical here, the coach for whatever reason is in Lemonds room, Dr. Ferrari emerges from the mens room with a huge syringe that says EPO and says to your friend"Oh its time for me to give Greg his "orange juice" then the coach watches Greg get his shot. the next day greg does the fastest tt in tour history.
Still the coach has not seen **** unless he grabbed the syring and had it tested.

Do you understand yet? anything less is just bs & rumour by someone who wants to make themselves MORE important which they gain from in monetary terms.
After all you believe his bull crap even though he has no reason to tell you .
If its true why do you need to know? Why does he need to tell you?
It is to lower Lemonds stature & raise his own.

 

[BigBoat]

Without getting emotional, I don't think so. The coach isn't a friend of mine, but I will say this - he is in a position to know, and had no reason to make the story up. He is in his 60's, not some immature guy who wants attention.
Who he coaches these days has more to do with $$, he has done enough hard yards. Who cares if some of them ride in speedos? The world champions didn't.
QUOTE]

Ok we have established that this coach cares about the$$ first.
He can bolster his business by making his rep bigger than what it is by claiming insider info. Even Eddie B who would be the foremost coach in the US during Lemonds era would have no knowledge of what Lemond did in his room.
Just think about it your coach/friend claims insider knowledge that no one else has. Lets have a hypothetical here, the coach for whatever reason is in Lemonds room, Dr. Ferrari emerges from the mens room with a huge syringe that says EPO and says to your friend"Oh its time for me to give Greg his "orange juice" then the coach watches Greg get his shot. the next day greg does the fastest tt in tour history.
Still the coach has not seen **** unless he grabbed the syring and had it tested.

Do you understand yet? anything less is just bs & rumour by someone who wants to make themselves MORE important which they gain from in monetary terms.
After all you believe his bull crap even though he has no reason to tell you .
If its true why do you need to know? Why does he need to tell you?
It is to lower Lemonds stature & raise his own.

Running boy... I think Lemond has some issues after his sexual abuse that he's still dealing with. And thats okay, but what he claims (lies about) shouldnt quite be taking to 100% believablility... Anybody who admits having sex with another dude at a young age is not really credible, add in the fact that a VERY respectable cancer survivor (another american) won the Tour de France 8 times....Of course there's going to be jelousy there. You know.

Lemond could have shut his mouth and if he really did not dope he could have not said anything about it publically. He could have supported Lance though his Tour wins and told only Lance of this. So only Lance knew and it did not come back as bitter.

 

[Nick777]

Or invent what he thought went on.

I am FAR more connected to the professional sport then your "coach" will ever be. It never happened. Complete invention.

Well good for you.

I am telling you what he told me, you don't have to believe it.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

Anybody who admits having sex with another dude at a young age is not really credible.

All right. Your sarcastic points have been made. We got it. But you're going way too far here. You're trolling for no reason at this point. No reason at all. Posts like this, and your earlier one I won't quote again, are completely and totally uncalled for.

 

[Nick777]

Without getting emotional, I don't think so. The coach isn't a friend of mine, but I will say this - he is in a position to know, and had no reason to make the story up. He is in his 60's, not some immature guy who wants attention.
Who he coaches these days has more to do with $$, he has done enough hard yards. Who cares if some of them ride in speedos? The world champions didn't.
QUOTE]

Ok we have established that this coach cares about the$$ first.
He can bolster his business by making his rep bigger than what it is by claiming insider info. Even Eddie B who would be the foremost coach in the US during Lemonds era would have no knowledge of what Lemond did in his room.
Just think about it your coach/friend claims insider knowledge that no one else has. Lets have a hypothetical here, the coach for whatever reason is in Lemonds room, Dr. Ferrari emerges from the mens room with a huge syringe that says EPO and says to your friend"Oh its time for me to give Greg his "orange juice" then the coach watches Greg get his shot. the next day greg does the fastest tt in tour history.
Still the coach has not seen **** unless he grabbed the syring and had it tested.

Do you understand yet? anything less is just bs & rumour by someone who wants to make themselves MORE important which they gain from in monetary terms.
After all you believe his bull crap even though he has no reason to tell you .
If its true why do you need to know? Why does he need to tell you?
It is to lower Lemonds stature & raise his own.

Sorry, dude. You haven't established anything.

I have no leaning towards Armstrong or Lemond & couldn't really care less if Lemond doped or not. You're getting way off the point. I said that the coach was in his 60's and was making money coaching triathletes, having coached cyclists for years. If he wants to have a full time career in coaching, who cares who his clients are? He coached more than one cyclist to a world championship, and at least three triathlete (that I know of) to world championships. He doesn't need to invent stories for business purposes - his record speaks for itself.

He was not my coach, I had no intention of training under him & the conversation happened on a couch in a hotel in Sydney, Australia. He wasn't big noting, or trying to impress. I was merely asking him questions about some cyclists & he was answering.

Just because he didn't see it happen, doesn't mean it didn't happen.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

Nor does it mean it did.

No?

 

[acoggan]

Coyle's study was actually fairly accurate. Lance's efficiency is actually higher than what Coycle calculated it to be.

More importantly, the most important observation - i.e., that efficiency tends to improve over the years in individuals who engage in prolonged and intense training for cycling - has been confirmed in a couple of more recent studies, which examined a much larger numbers of individuals. IOW, Armstrong's reported improvement in efficiency is by no means unique.

 

[acoggan]

Not really, Coyle is a joke. Even before the truth came out most of his peers considered him a fraud

http://www.sportsscientists.com/2008/09/coyle-and-armstrong-research-errors.html


http://www.sportsscientists.com/2008/09/coyle-armstrong-research-installment-2.html

"Peers"? You're talking about two newly-minted PhDs from a highly-controversial laboratory, only one of whom holds an academic position and who have only a handful of papers between them. I'd hardly consider their views/opinions on any subject related to exercise science as representative of the mainstream.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

More importantly...

Acoggan - I don't think you realize that BigBoat is trolling here with the ultimate sarcasm. He can't stand Lance, and has probably made well over 100 posts about him being super jacked, blood doped, etc. Look back a few weeks to his past posts and you'll see.

Also suggest you read, at your leisure, the Michael Ashenden interview if you'd like a different, and I think objective, view on the Coyle report.

 

[Eva Maria]

"Peers"? You're talking about two newly-minted PhDs from a highly-controversial laboratory, only one of whom holds an academic position and who have only a handful of papers between them. I'd hardly consider their views/opinions on any subject related to exercise science as representative of the mainstream.

I can understand how you can be a bit bitter. You stood up for your fraud mentor and got egg on your face.....but you can do better then that. If you don't agree with the guys you might try refuting what they have written instead of attacking them personally. If all you have to support your position is insults your position is weak.

 

[acoggan]

I can understand how you can be a bit bitter. You stood up for your fraud mentor and got egg on your face.....but you can do better then that. If you don't agree with the guys you might try refuting what they have written instead of attacking them personally. If all you have to support your position is insults your position is weak.

Those aren't insults, just statements of fact: the two guys responsible for that website are quite new to "the game", and only time will tell whether they will be able to develop reputations as independent scientists that would truly qualify them as peers of individuals who have been around much longer. (So far, I'd say that it isn't looking very good, i.e., I think that their blogging activity - presumably inspired by Noakes' approach to the field - is going to come back to bite them in the ****. However, since it isn't clear that either really aspires to a career in academia, perhaps they don't care.)

As for rebutting their arguments, I take it that you haven't read the comments that I left on their blog? Everything that I care to say specific to the topic I've already said there...

 

[acoggan]

Acoggan - I don't think you realize that BigBoat is trolling here with the ultimate sarcasm.

Trust me, I realize that - responding to such trolls is simply an excuse for me to present my opinions to others (i.e., I don't expect to convince him/her, much less care whether I do or not).

Also suggest you read, at your leisure, the Michael Ashenden interview if you'd like a different, and I think objective, view on the Coyle report.

I have read that interview, as well as other stuff written about/by Ashenden. While I can admire him for his passionate anti-doping stance, that is about all that I can say that I admire about him.

 

[Bronstein]

Trust me, I realize that - responding to such trolls is simply an excuse for me to present my opinions to others (i.e., I don't expect to convince him/her, much less care whether I do or not).



I have read that interview, as well as other stuff written about/by Ashenden. While I can admire him for his passionate anti-doping stance, that is about all that I can say that I admire about him.

What don't you admire about him?

 

[BroDeal]

"Peers"? You're talking about two newly-minted PhDs from a highly-controversial laboratory, only one of whom holds an academic position and who have only a handful of papers between them. I'd hardly consider their views/opinions on any subject related to exercise science as representative of the mainstream.

Maybe you should refute their criticism of the paper...

 

[acoggan]

Maybe you should refute their criticism of the paper...

I did: see my comments on their blog.

 

[BroDeal]

I did: see my comments on their blog.

Aurgh. Responded before I could delete that post after seeing your post above.

 

[Escarabajo]

"Peers"? You're talking about two newly-minted PhDs from a highly-controversial laboratory, only one of whom holds an academic position and who have only a handful of papers between them. I'd hardly consider their views/opinions on any subject related to exercise science as representative of the mainstream.

Of course you have to give the benefit of the doubt to Coyle's work, mainly because when he started to do his work he did not realize the magnitude of what he was doing until Lance Armstrong won the 7 titles. Otherwise he probably would have taken better care of some data collection and uncertainties related with the measurements. Having said that "The Science of the Sport" did a good job trying to explain 2 things:

1- The error in the Delta efficiency which was pretty obvious. (Not taking into account the energy use at rest)

2- The impact that the variables uncertainties have in all results including Gross Energy Efficiency. Any tweaking of these variables and you could have had a significant change in the output of the equation to the point that no change in the Gross Energy Efficiency would have been observed. Hec, even experts debate to this moment what was Lance Armstrong actual weight pre-cancer and pos-cancer. This could have been of no meaning if the paper had not been used as the cornerstone for explaining the reason for the Lance Armstrong won 7 Tour de France and his use in the SCA lawsuit trial. Otherwise it would have been neglected pretty much.

I don't see anything wrong with what they said and did in that article.
Thanks.

I just noted you made comments in the blog. Enough said then

 

[Eva Maria]

What don't you admire about him?

It is always easier for Coggan to attack the messenger then address the message.

 

[acoggan]

Aurgh. Responded before I could delete that post after seeing your post above.

I'm glad that you did, actually, as it stimulated me to revisit the blog's comments section to see precisely what I had written. Lo and behold, I find that numerous responses by myself and others (e.g., Frank Day) seem to have somehow magically disappeared. They own the site, so censoring certain individuals/responses is certainly well within their rights - however, to me it the utmost of hypocrisy to hold yourself forth as "the" source of scientific "truth" on various topics, then proceed to any suppress dissenting views.

 

[acoggan]

Of course you have to give the benefit of the doubt to Coyle's work, mainly because when he started to do his work he did not realize the magnitude of what he was doing until Lance Armstrong won the 7 titles. Otherwise he probably would have taken better care of some data collection and uncertainties related with the measurements. Having said that "The Science of the Sport" did a good job trying to explain 2 things:

1- The error in the Delta efficiency which was pretty obvious. (Not taking into account the energy use at rest)

2- The impact that the variables uncertainties have in all results including Gross Energy Efficiency. Any tweaking of these variables and you could have had a significant change in the output of the equation to the point that no change in the Gross Energy Efficiency would have been observed. Hec, even experts debate to this moment what was Lance Armstrong actual weight pre-cancer and pos-cancer. This could have been of no meaning if the paper had not been used as the cornerstone for explaining the reason for the Lance Armstrong won 7 Tour de France and his use in the SCA lawsuit trial. Otherwise it would have been neglected pretty much.

I don't see anything wrong with what they said and did in that article. If you are not happy with what they did just send them a comment or e-mail with your comments just like everybody else did.
Thanks.

1. The "error" you refer to isn't really an obvious one at all. That is, delta efficiency has been/can be calculated various ways in different papers, with the method that Coyle actually used being an acceptable one. The only real mistake was in citing the wrong paper, i.e., one that did take into account changes in the intercept, as is sometimes, but not always, done.

2. I agree that the paper in question wouldn't have gotten published if Armstrong hadn't been the subject, and Ashenden likely wouldn't have gotten all worked up about it if it hadn't been for the SCA lawsuit. Be that as it may, though, I think it is quite telling that the general observation - i.e., that cycling efficiency tends to improve over time in those who train at a very high level for many years - has now been confirmed in a couple of subsequent studies (with multiple subjects, not just one).

Anyway, as for responding to Ross and Jon, I actually posted quite a few times to their blog...

 

[acoggan]

It is always easier for Coggan to attack the messenger then address the message.

I addressed the "message" not only in my comments to Lauro Weislow in an article published on this site, but also in comments that I posted to the sportscientists.com site.

 

[Escarabajo]

I addressed the "message" not only in my comments to Lauro Weislow in an article published on this site, but also in comments that I posted to the sportscientists.com site. Unfortunately, all but one of the latter (none of which entailed any form of personally attack) has been removed.

I saw that. Thanks.

 

[Eva Maria]

I addressed the "message" not only in my comments to Lauro Weislow in an article published on this site, but also in comments that I posted to the sportscientists.com site. Unfortunately, all but one of the latter (none of which entailed any form of personally attack) has been removed.

Actually Andrew that is not the case.

I am an avid reader of the Sports Scientist blog. I remember when they wrote their post's on Coyle's "Work" you posted a few comments that were very similar to what you posted here, you attacked the messenger instead of addressing the message. It was only after these posts that you gave a couple of points. It sticks in my mind because you came across as super arrogant

 

[Dr. Maserati]

1. The "error" you refer to isn't really an obvious one at all. That is, delta efficiency has been/can be calculated various ways in different papers, with the method that Coyle actually used being an acceptable one. The only real mistake was in citing the wrong paper, i.e., one that did take into account changes in the intercept, as is sometimes, but not always, done.

2. I agree that the paper in question wouldn't have gotten published if Armstrong hadn't been the subject, and Ashenden likely wouldn't have gotten all worked up about it if it hadn't been for the SCA lawsuit. Be that as it may, though, I think it is quite telling that the general observation - i.e., that cycling efficiency tends to improve over time in those who train at a very high level for many years - has now been confirmed in a couple of subsequent studies (with multiple subjects, not just one).

Anyway, as for responding to Ross and Jon, I actually posted quite a few times to their blog, but all but one of my posts has now been removed...

Firstly- I think you will find that the posters on this side of the forum are - by in large- objective and many have a good deal of knowledge on all the subjects.
To that end I appreciate you coming in and sharing your views with all of us.
On point number 2 above - could you provide a link as to studies mentioned?

 

[acoggan]

On point number 2 above - could you provide a link as to studies mentioned?

Recent cross-sectional or longitudinal studies supporting the conclusion that cycling efficiency improves with training:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18953100

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19276841

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18059575

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16998438