Reason for Lemond's decline

[acoggan]

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

Please point to an example.

 

[BroDeal]

So here is a question: If efficiency can improve anywhere near what Coyle is claiming for Armstrong then how can a young rider possibly compete with an older rider? Climbers like Andy Schleck or Alberto Contador, who were already among the best climbers in the world when they were young, should be supermen by the time they are thirty. Is not the gain large enough that the young A. Schleck would have to use a drug like EPO just to be competitive against the older version of himself?

Second question: How can any conclusions be drawn from the study of one subject when that subject participates in a sport where doping is not only rampant but probably required to reach to the top of the sport? The list of podium finishers from 1995 to 2005 show about 80% of the riders are now known to have used drugs. The subject himself has a mountain of evidence showing that he used drugs. It is like doing a study on the benefits of alcohol free living using a test subject taken from a bar and knowing that test subject still visits the bar every night.

 

[Eva Maria]

Please point to an example.

Did you ever use the phase "Get a real job"? Or was that your buddy Coyle?

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

To continue on what BroDeal says, such efficiency, if indeed "hard data" would then continue on with many other riders who have ridden many miles, including those who are seasoned, and have raced many more miles than Lance (such as, Carlos Sastre). Is this not logically correct?

And as BroDeal states, using that theory as a base, if it is indeed not dynamic, it can't explain many riders, such as Jan Ullrich, slow down as they got older, even when he was fit. Nor does it explain that someone like Laurent Fignon could win the Tour de France at 22 and 23, and have to retire at 31 because he was too slow. Or, if you'd like an example of someone from the current era, Damiano Cunego.

Actually Andrew that is not the case. It sticks in my mind because you came across as super arrogant

Please point to an example.

I think she is saying they were removed because you didn't make any counter argument in your posts, and they were just super arrogant. Thus, there are no examples for her to point to.

 

[acoggan]

So here is a question: If efficiency can improve anywhere near what Coyle is claiming for Armstrong then how can a young rider possibly compete with an older rider? Climbers like Andy Schleck or Alberto Contador, who were already among the best climbers in the world when they were young, should be supermen by the time they are thirty. Is not the gain large enough that the young A. Schleck would have to use a drug like EPO just to be competitive against the older version of himself?

You are overestimating the magnitude, and hence potential benefit, of any long-term-training induced increase in efficiency, at least in regards to other adaptations (e.g., increased VO2max, increased LT) and especially in regards to the potential impact of doping with EPO. IOW, while an increase in efficiency over time likely contributes to the fact that, like many other endurance athletes, trained cyclists tend to peak in their late 20s/early 30s, there are so many other factors that contribute to performance that some exceptionally-talented younger riders can still be competitive with those at the "top of their game." Even so, you would expect that an older version of Contador or Schleck to be better than their younger self, at least/especially in events where efficiency (vs., say, neuromuscular power) is particularly important, e.g., TTs.

Second question: How can any conclusions be drawn from the study of one subject when that subject participates in a sport where doping is not only rampant but probably required to reach to the top of the sport? The list of podium finishers from 1995 to 2005 show about 80% of the riders are now known to have used drugs. The subject himself has a mountain of evidence showing that he used drugs. It is like doing a study on the benefits of alcohol free living using a test subject taken from a bar and knowing that test subject still visits the bar every night.

Unless there were proof that a subject used performance-enhancing drugs, the reputation of their sport would rightfully have no bearing on whether or not a particular paper is worthy of publication.

 

[acoggan]

Did you ever use the phase "Get a real job"? Or was that your buddy Coyle?

That was Ed (although I don't think he phrased it quite so pithily in his reply to Ashenden et al.'s letter-to-the-editor in JAP).

 

[acoggan]

To continue on what BroDeal says, such efficiency, if indeed "hard data" would then continue on with many other riders who have ridden many miles, including those who are seasoned, and have raced many more miles than Lance (such as, Carlos Sastre). Is this not logically correct?

Yes, and in fact I have previously posted my own personal data to the forum at slowtwitch.com that, like Armstrong's, my efficiency has apparently improved over the years (I say "apparently" because, like Coyle's case study, the data were not collected with this purpose in mind).

And as BroDeal states, using that theory as a base, if it is indeed not dynamic, it can't explain many riders, such as Jan Ullrich, slow down as they got older, even when he was fit. Nor does it explain that someone like Laurent Fignon could win the Tour de France at 22 and 23, and have to retire at 31 because he was too slow. Or, if you'd like an example of someone from the current era, Damiano Cunego.

There are numerous factors that contribute to cycling performance, even if you restrict the definition of the latter to the power that someone can sustain for a particular duration. The fact that some (many), but not all, riders get better as they get older therefore really doesn't say anything one way or the other with regards to whether or not efficiency improves with long-term training.

 

[Eva Maria]

Unless there were proof that a subject used performance-enhancing drugs, the reputation of their sport would rightfully have no bearing on whether or not a particular paper is worthy of publication.

In Coyles case his subject had tested positive 7 times and admitted it to friends.

 

[acoggan]

In Coyles case his subject had tested positive 7 times and admitted it to friends.

There are clearly those who would dispute such claims. For sake of argument, however, let's assume that the hearsay is correct and that storage of urine samples for many years does not invalidate the EPO assay - by what plausible physiological mechanism do you propose EPO improves cycling efficiency? I for one can't think of any, and absent any such mechanism you couldn't rightfully use this "fact" to reject a case-study such as the one of Armstrong (although you would certainly be expected to discuss it).

 

[Eva Maria]

There are clearly those who would dispute such claims. For sake of argument, however, let's assume that the hearsay is correct and that storage of urine samples for many years does not invalidate the EPO assay - by what plausible physiological mechanism do you propose EPO improves cycling efficiency? I for one can't think of any, and absent any such mechanism you couldn't rightfully use this "fact" to reject a case-study such as the one of Armstrong (although you would certainly be expected to discuss it).

(BTW, this is one of the points that Frank Day repeatedly made in his replies to the sportsscience.com blog entry/entries, which like all but one of my comments have been deleted.)

Few ration people who have followed the sport would dispute that Armstrong doped as there is a mountain of evidence to support this.

Are you really asking how EPO improves cycling efficiency? The answer isn't obvious?

 

[acoggan]

Are you really asking how EPO improves cycling efficiency? The answer isn't obvious?

I will be blunt: there is absolutely no plausible physiological mechanism by which EPO can improve cycling efficiency.

 

[Escarabajo]

There are clearly those who would dispute such claims. For sake of argument, however, let's assume that the hearsay is correct and that storage of urine samples for many years does not invalidate the EPO assay - by what plausible physiological mechanism do you propose EPO improves cycling efficiency? I for one can't think of any, and absent any such mechanism you couldn't rightfully use this "fact" to reject a case-study such as the one of Armstrong (although you would certainly be expected to discuss it).

I am an engineer so probably I am not an expert on this field, but doesn't EPO improves (Increases) the O2 delivery to the musscles, therefore improving cycling efficiency? Delta Efficiency increases (1/slope) because the Energy Use decreases while you can do the same work. Mathematically speaking is simple. Maybe you can tell me why EPO does not improve cycling efficiency.

 

[blackcat]

There are clearly those who would dispute such claims. For sake of argument, however, let's assume that the hearsay is correct and that storage of urine samples for many years does not invalidate the EPO assay - by what plausible physiological mechanism do you propose EPO improves cycling efficiency? I for one can't think of any, and absent any such mechanism you couldn't rightfully use this "fact" to reject a case-study such as the one of Armstrong (although you would certainly be expected to discuss it).

dispute claims?

What, like the modern era of US journalism that dictates there are two sides to every story, and facts are only determined in a courtroom?

That dispute?

That requires you to check your brain at the coat room, when you enter into any cognitive interpretation.

I suppose you also buy the Israeli Defense Forces spokesman and their assertion that the IDF is the most moral army in the world, and they never conducted human rights violations (a massacre) in Gaza?

Because they dispute those "claims".

Risible, make sure you collect your brain from the cloak room on the way out, oh wait, how can you remember to collect your brain, when you check it. Another sacrifice to the alter of Edward Bernays, lobbying, and the 21C US media paradigm of "two sides to every story".

 

[acoggan]

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

After hunting around a bit I discovered that the majority of my comments (and those of Frank Day) were actually in response to a third and final blog, which was not linked to originally. That blog entry can be found here:

http://www.sportsscientists.com/2008/09/coyle-continued.html

IOW, my comments were not censored as I all-too-hastily assumed, and I publically apologize to Ross and Jonathon for claiming that they were. (I have also deleted and/or edited my posts above to help redact my accusation.)

As for your claim above that I "attacked the messenger instead of the message", I will leave it up to others to read my comments there (which I stand by) and decide for themselves...

 

[Eva Maria]

I will be blunt: there is absolutely no plausible physiological mechanism by which EPO can improve cycling efficiency.

So a 20% increase in power is not an improvement?

 

[Eva Maria]

After hunting around a bit I discovered that the majority of my comments (and those of Frank Day) were actually in response to a third and final blog, which was not linked to originally. That blog entry can be found here:

http://www.sportsscientists.com/2008/09/coyle-continued.html

IOW, my comments were not censored as I all-too-hastily assumed, and I publically apologize to Ross and Jonathon for claiming that they were. (I have also deleted and/or edited my posts above to help redact my accusation.)

As for your claim above that I "attacked the messenger instead of the message", I will leave it up to others to read my comments there (which I stand by) and decide for themselves...

Thanks for the correction.

I also should be corrected as my recollection of the "Get a real job" comment was it came from you, but it came from Coyle. HIS first reaction to those questioning is work was to attack the messenger, not yours.

 

[acoggan]

I am an engineer so probably I am not an expert on this field, but doesn't EPO improves (Increases) the O2 delivery to the musscles, therefore improving cycling efficiency? Delta Efficiency increases (1/slope) because the Energy Use decreases while you can do the same work. Mathematically speaking is simple. Maybe you can tell me why EPO does not improve cycling efficiency.

An increase in hematocrit induced by EPO (or via blood doping) would increase O2 delivery to the muscles, and hence VO2max and performance. Efficiency, however, would be unaffected.

From an engineering perspective, you can think of it as employing a 2nd, smaller, electrical motor to assist a larger original one...both current draw (VO2) and power output would go up, but thermodynamic efficiency would be unchanged.

 

[acoggan]

So a 20% increase in power is not an improvement?

It is not an improvement in efficiency (and given the current hematocrit limit, a 10% increase in power is about the maximum that can be achieved even if you "doped to the gills").

 

[blackcat]

So here is a question: If efficiency can improve anywhere near what Coyle is claiming for Armstrong then how can a young rider possibly compete with an older rider? Climbers like Andy Schleck or Alberto Contador, who were already among the best climbers in the world when they were young, should be supermen by the time they are thirty. Is not the gain large enough that the young A. Schleck would have to use a drug like EPO just to be competitive against the older version of himself?

Second question: How can any conclusions be drawn from the study of one subject when that subject participates in a sport where doping is not only rampant but probably required to reach to the top of the sport? The list of podium finishers from 1995 to 2005 show about 80% of the riders are now known to have used drugs. The subject himself has a mountain of evidence showing that he used drugs. It is like doing a study on the benefits of alcohol free living using a test subject taken from a bar and knowing that test subject still visits the bar every night.

and they never contemplated that in the findings.

They did not go and look at 1999, and why the USPS team came in at a 49 hematocrit, and why their natural levels were much less.

And why Armstrong has recently said about 2005 that he was on 43 "and I believe that is a compelling number". Well, no one will tell Armstrong he has **** for brains, because he just proved, that 49 was suspicious with this soundbite, trying to use his 2005 starting hematocrit, as the basis to prove he was clean. It does nothing of the sort. You can still create a longitudinal profile of Armstrong, on just hematocrit. I do not know if they had hemoglobin and reticulyte readings. I assume they did not.

But, you can still look at where his hematocrit was over his entire career, and why it yo-yo'ed. And hematocrit should not vary more than 10% net without some medical reason. So why was he at 49 in 1999, yet he had a compelling figure of 43 in 2005. And just why does he think it is compelling. And why does he think he needs to tell us it is compelling, in the unspoken 1999 parameters. And what can you take from this anomaly?

 

[Digger]

An increase in hematocrit induced by EPO (or via blood doping) would increase O2 delivery to the muscles, and hence VO2max and performance. Efficiency, however, would be unaffected.

From an engineering perspective, you can think of it as employing a 2nd, smaller, electrical motor to assist a larger original one...both current draw (VO2) and power output would go up, but thermodynamic efficiency would be unchanged.

A couple of points I'd like to raise.
Coyle mentions the weight loss as being a huge advantage in the performance increase, yet this seems very variable to say the least, depending on who you talk to.
Secondly, Coyle mentions Lance as having a heart which is far bigger than the average human etc. What formal tests jave been carried out here to show this? Something which Ashenden alludes to.

 

[Eva Maria]

and they never contemplated that in the findings.

They did not go and look at 1999, and why the USPS team came in at a 49 hematocrit, and why their natural levels were much less.

And why Armstrong has recently said about 2005 that he was on 43 "and I believe that is a compelling number". Well, no one will tell Armstrong he has **** for brains, because he just proved, that 49 was suspicious with this soundbite, trying to use his 2005 starting hematocrit, as the basis to prove he was clean. It does nothing of the sort. You can still create a longitudinal profile of Armstrong, on just hematocrit. I do not know if they had hemoglobin and reticulyte readings. I assume they did not.

But, you can still look at where his hematocrit was over his entire career, and why it yo-yo'ed. And hematocrit should not vary more than 10% net without some medical reason. So why was he at 49 in 1999, yet he had a compelling figure of 43 in 2005. And just why does he think it is compelling. And why does he think he needs to tell us it is compelling, in the unspoken 1999 parameters. And what can you take from this anomaly?

Armstrong said that a rider can get from 39 to 48.5 by the use of a tent alone, something that is impossible.

 

[Eva Maria]

It is not an improvement in efficiency (and given the current hematocrit limit, a 10% increase in power is about the maximum that can be achieved even if you "doped to the gills").

an increase Hct from 37 to 49.5 will result in a greater then 10% increase in power for some riders.

 

[Eva Maria]

From an engineering perspective, you can think of it as employing a 2nd, smaller, electrical motor to assist a larger original one...both current draw (VO2) and power output would go up, but thermodynamic efficiency would be unchanged.

But the 2nd motor would add weight, which EPO does not do.

 

[Digger]

From an interview Lance gave in December. The lies and sidestepping are impressive, even for him.

What’s your VO2 Max?
Today? I’ve no idea.

What was it?
I don’t know.

You don’t know?
I did some tests back when I was 16.

You don’t know your VO2 Max?
I haven’t done a test in a long time.

What was it?
The best I can remember, the low 80s.

I saw some recent pictures of you cycling, Your upper body looks much bigger than when you were winning the Tour.
I’m 170 pounds, which is very light for me at this time of year. And there’s not a lot of fat. I usually start the season at 180, I’m 170 now. At the Tour, I’m 164.

What’s the highest haematocrit you ever registered?
Er…I don’t know. Maybe… 45, 46.

Haematocrit is a tricky number. In 2003 I started the Tour at 39. It varies greatly depending on effort the day before, dehydration, altitude.

In the last couple of years I’ve been 47 48. It doesn't mean I’ve been out taking illegal drugs. I think starting the Tour at 39, that’s a compelling number.

 

[blackcat]

Armstrong said that a rider can get from 39 to 48.5 by the use of a tent alone, something that is impossible.

Armstrong was also on Larry King Live discussing the respective characteristics of their ex-wives, then mentioning by chance, he goes to the Canaries to train at altitude and boost his crit by 6 points gross or so.

And he has talked to other journalists about the importance of the blood and blood parameters. Does not sound like a clean rider.

All of the unctuous responses which Armstrong repeats in soundbites, carefully scripted and rehearsed, if you analyse it, make him come off as a fricken idiout.

1. The "43 is a very compelling number" re: 2005.
2. "Well that is actually not right, I did take EPO, when I was being treated for cancer because it was part of the recovery". This Clayton's admission to make him come across as transparent and truthful, does nothing of the sort, when you assess Walsh's record, when he explicitly denied to Walsh he took EPO in his cancer treatment, back in 99. So, he lied on once occasion, and does not come across as more credible with such an unctuous admission.
3. Larry King, "train in the Canaries at altitude to boost the crit".
4. "altitude tents" etc
5. "the blood is very important".

Can anyone not read the falsity of his narrative and soundbites? Does one have to spell it out any clearer for you?