Superhuman performance could betray sports drug cheats

[acoggan]

The combination of measurement uncertainty is not always straightforward (correct me if I am wrong, please), and I feel the need for some clarity on how the total error is being calculated here. Clearly if there are measurement errors as large as 11% for an estimate of power to weight then these may make the whole effort statistically futile (as Coggan argues), but if the different errors are simply down to different methods of error calculation then I am left really confused and rather unenlightened. In my field there have been some very fruitful discussions about measurement error which have helped identify the limits of particular measurement tools. What is interesting is that Tucker and Dugas do state that their error estimates are based on comparison with mechanical measurements. Many apologies if this has been dealt with elsewhere in detail or I am myself just suffering from confusion about error and uncertainty. BTW I hope Tucker and Dugas have not given up on this forum entirely...

As I indicated previously, I used a standard propogation-of-error approach, assuming a 2% error in estimating the relevant variables.

In contrast, Le Breton not only started from different assumptions, but also simply assumed that any errors were additive, not multiplicative.

Finally, I do not know the exact basis for Tucker's assertions, as I have been unable to locate the paper to which he alluded.

Obviously, though, the last approach described would seem to be the preferable one to take, especially since comparisons were made to direct measurements of power. However, even if the true confidence interval is +/- ~0.4 W/kg as he/they implied versus the +/- ~0.6 W/kg suggested by a straight propogation-of-error analysis, I still don't think the overall approach has merit, especially given the uncertainty on the physiological supply side of things.

 

[acoggan]

Well said. If I felt science was the only issue here I would have posted a number of questions for Coggan and others about the error figures in their estimates (which seem to be a key issue of debate) rather earlier. Sadly, it really does seem that ad hominem attacks are the order of the day

Please post even one example of what you consider to be an ad hominem attack on any particular individual by yours truly.

 

[acoggan]

I do not know the exact basis for Tucker's assertions, as I have been unable to locate the paper to which he alluded.

With a bit of digging I found this:

http://www.cyclismag.com/article.php?sid=5184

but it's not a peer-reviewed paper and I can't read French anyway. Even so, it appears that not everyone agrees with Portoleau calculations and assumptions, e.g.:

http://forum.team-saxobank.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=5013&whichpage=19

(scroll down to a post by "KD teammate".)

 

[soulor]

As I indicated previously, I used a standard propogation-of-error approach, assuming a 2% error in estimating the relevant variables.

In contrast, Le Breton not only started from different assumptions, but also simply assumed that any errors were additive, not multiplicative.

Finally, I do not know the exact basis for Tucker's assertions, as I have been unable to locate the paper to which he alluded.

Obviously, though, the last approach described would seem to be the preferable one to take, especially since comparisons were made to direct measurements of power. However, even if the true confidence interval is +/- ~0.4 W/kg as he/they implied versus the +/- ~0.6 W/kg suggested by a straight propogation-of-error analysis, I still don't think the overall approach has merit, especially given the uncertainty on the physiological supply side of things.

Thanks for the quick reply which explains some of my earlier confusion. The multiplicative route seems entirely reasonable and would make a substantial contribution to the different error estimates.

I don't know what study the 2.4% comes from either, would be interested to see the detailed source for this, whether published or not.

 

[soulor]

With a bit of digging I found this:

http://www.cyclismag.com/article.php?sid=5184

but it's not a peer-reviewed paper and I can't read French anyway. Even so, it appears that not everyone agrees with Portoleau calculations and assumptions, e.g.:

http://forum.team-saxobank.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=5013&whichpage=19

(scroll down to a post by "KD teammate".)

Thanks especially for the second link which has some nice comparisons of direct and estimated power measurements.

 

[acoggan]

Thanks especially for the second link which has some nice comparisons of direct and estimated power measurements.

Rather striking data, eh?

 

[Cozy Beehive]

Such as the notion that Armstrong and Bruyneel have decided to embrace the future and form a cabal with amateur bloggers in an attempt to influence public opinion, while forsaking interaction with members of the languishing traditional media? That would be quite believable in a US presidential election campaign (the first part, anyway), but don't these guys have a big bike race they want to win?

REF : Post#84.

I realize you're talking about me here. That's okay, I'm ready to take the hit for it. It may have sounded total nonsense to a person like you, not to a reader familiar with Armstrong's blatant PR and ad campaigns. You're a man of science (like me). Every theory starts with a hypothesis. Someone, even a nobody, can come up with the hypothesis. I'm glad I was bold enough to step forward and say this while others, who believed that this was entirely plausible, sat and sucked their thumbs.

P.S : On another note, you do have been keeping busy reading these posts behind the veil.

 

[buckwheat]

I realize you're talking about me here. That's okay, I'm ready to take the hit for it. It may have sounded total nonsense to a person like you, not to a reader familiar with Armstrong's blatant PR and ad campaigns. You're a man of science (like me). Every theory starts with a hypothesis. Someone, even a nobody, can come up with the hypothesis. I'm glad I was bold enough to step forward and say this while others, who believed that this was entirely plausible, sat and sucked their thumbs.

P.S : On another note, you do have been keeping busy reading these posts behind the veil.

I'm not a fan of ACoggan's strategy, whatever it is.

BTW, it was quite well known that LA did read the blogs as he noted in interviews. Also LA is involved with Public Stategies who are actually running his PR show right now with this federal investigation and were involved in Texas politics and ALL that means.

Armstrong was saying that he couldn't take the posts of a "52 tooth chainring" or some anonymous poster seriously.

 

[Parrot23]

REF : Post#84.
Every theory starts with a hypothesis. Someone, even a nobody, can come up with the hypothesis. I'm glad I was bold enough to step forward and say this....

I'm glad you said it in this order, Cozy Beehive.

The bold hypotheses (with fragmentary data), then a research program and some more fragmentary data, then hypothesis testing.

Not like one naive positivist (and egoist) on this board.

nb: I've not often seen an image tech guy with a 15 page CV.

http://wustl.academia.edu/AndrewRCoggan/CurriculumVitae

 

[buckwheat]

REF : Post#84.

I realize you're talking about me here. That's okay, I'm ready to take the hit for it. It may have sounded total nonsense to a person like you, not to a reader familiar with Armstrong's blatant PR and ad campaigns. You're a man of science (like me). Every theory starts with a hypothesis. Someone, even a nobody, can come up with the hypothesis. I'm glad I was bold enough to step forward and say this while others, who believed that this was entirely plausible, sat and sucked their thumbs.

P.S : On another note, you do have been keeping busy reading these posts behind the veil.

Don't apologize. btw, to the guy who was trying to demean my mentioning of Einstein. Einstein's boss at the patent office told him this.

Don't accept the truth of something, merely because everyone else views it as obvious.

Feynman had a similiar skeptical view of the "authorities."

 

[Nikolai]

Thanks for the additional information. I was indeed not fully up to speed. I knew that you had some sort of working relationship with Coyle, but was unaware of your position on the Armstrong paper, so thanks for clarifying.




Well, I guess the degree to which you dismiss the argument depends on the degree to which you think Coyle was complicit or influenced.

To the tin foil hat types on here (of which there are certainly a few), the scenario goes like this: Big Tex and Eddie Coyle (Lance calls him Eddie, since they're fellow Texans and all) are hangin' around Big Tex' ranch, playing poker, smoking cigars and being waited on by hot strippers. Big Tex says "Eddie, I've gone from classics to climber, and sooner or later some people are gonna start asking questions. We need a plan!" Big Tex lets him win a couple hands. High fives all around! The rest is history.

Given what I know of Armstrong through former teammates this seems totally plausible. I have enough respect for your profession to think it's pretty unlikely, though (if this were the drug industry and these were research scientists, I'd not only consider it plausible, but likely! That's a different matter, though).

Here's a more likely scenario. Coyle has rare access to one of the sport's greatest superstars, and biggest personalities. He collects a lot of data, and along the way builds as least somewhat of a relationship with Armstrong.

Knowing Armstrong's historical VO2 numbers, and witnessing his rather sudden ascendancy for one-day rider to Tour dominator, he realizes that something must have changed from a physiological perspective. Most likely, his VO2, his ability to ride at a higher % of it, or his efficiency would have changed. The first is somewhat unlikely without doping, and it's always been claimed that he was always able to ride at a high % of VO2.

That last of those seems to be one of the holy grails, changes in efficiency. This not only confirms Armstrong's heartwarming story, but professionally gives Coyle a feather in his cap for documenting the LA's change in efficiency.

That leaves us with the possibility that Coyle was already hypothesizing that Armstrong increased his efficiency, and his interpretation of the data was made to fit this hypothesis due to his cognitive biases (furthered by his conflict of interest in having a relationship with the subject).

Big Tex and Co. then realize that Coyle's conclusions support their contention that "all he's on is his bike 6 hrs a day", so they run with it.

Please note, I'm not saying that this is case! I'm simply saying that I consider the above scenario to be plausible, and not "silly".

Personally, I like the first scenario better. It creates some awesome, and hilarious visual images. The second scenario is at least plausible in my book.

All that said, I'm equally aware that Ashenden seems to have a great deal of disdain for Armstrong, so I view his criticisms of Coyle's study as having the same potential for bias.

Dude, your constant referral to someone you know who knows Armstrong, and now this B-movie like fantasy is slowly getting from being ludicrous to ridiculous. Life is not a Hollywood movie. Ride your bike more and perhaps you'll have less time to dream up 007 plots.

 

[acoggan]

REF : Post#84.

I realize you're talking about me here.

P.S : On another note, you do have been keeping busy reading these posts behind the veil.

With all due respect, don't flatter yourself too much: I only read the thread title.

 

[acoggan]

Don't apologize. btw, to the guy who was trying to demean my mentioning of Einstein.

You mean Lebreton.

 

[acoggan]

nb: I've not often seen an image tech guy with a 15 page CV.

http://wustl.academia.edu/AndrewRCoggan/CurriculumVitae

Yeah, just think what I could have accomplished if Armstrong hadn't been paying me all these years to burnish his image.

(THAT'S SARCASM, FOLKS!!)

 

[Krebs cycle]

Here's an even more plausible scenario:

Coyle has occasional access to Armstrong before he becomes a true superstar, testing him whenever Armstrong happens to be in town (remember, he's from the Dallas/Ft. Worth area, and only moved to Austin later) and happens to hit him up for some free physiological testing.* This contact is fostered for a while when Asker Jeukendrup, who used to work with Rabobank, does a 1 y post-doc in Ed's lab, and Asker and Armstrong get along rather well (Asker and Ed, not so much...which is why Asker left after only 1 y). After Asker leaves and Armstrong wins his first TdF, though, he no longer visits Ed's lab for testing.

*Recall that Armstrong has done VO2max tests in multiple labs, including his well-known, highly impromtu visit to Appalachian State University when training with Bob Roll in the mountains Armstrong succesfully raced up in the Tour DuPont. IOW, reaching out for such assistance with the expectation of receiving it is not a foreign idea to Carmichael/Armstrong.

Time passes, and when the ACSM meetings are in St. Louis someone decides to organize a small symposium (for "insider's only", i.e., everyone there had some connection to Wash U) honoring Ed's (and my) post-doctoral mentor, John Holloszy. Casting about for something to present at the poster portion of the meeting, Ed decides to present Armstrong's data. The focus of the poster becomes efficiency, since Ed has already published several papers addressing its role in cycling performance, and how it seemingly improves over time.

Over drinks, the poster makes for interesting conversation among the few of us interested in cycling, during which Ed asks me point-blank whether I think Armstrong dopes, and scoffs at the notion that sleeping in an altitude tent will significantly increase your hematocrit. For the most part, though, nobody really gives it much thought, in part because of the obvious limitations of the data set and in part because Ed has already made the case for changes in efficiency.

More time passes, and Ed decides to submit the paper to JAP for publication. It is accepted, and while most scientists don't pay much attention (after all, it is just a case study with results that are rather plausible, if not predictable...the only thing that really makes it of interest is who the subject was), the media/public-at-large loves it.

A bit more time passes (I think...not sure on the exact timeline at this point, 'cause I don't pay much attention to pro cycling in general, much less track every detail of every doping allegation/investigation), and Armstrong sues SCA after they refuse to pay him the $1 million bonus. At this point Armstrong's attorneys realize that Ed's paper works in their favor, and we can pick up with your last sentence I quoted above.

Of course, what would I know? I'm only the guy who salvaged and refurbished a mechanically-braked, electronically-controlled Monark ergometer for use in my dissertation that was subsequently (i.e., after I'd left Austin) used for at least some of Armstrong's testing...you know, the ones that the Australians claim to have never existed?

Oh this looks like a fun game. Hope you don't mind if I add another version.... you know, just so the readers of this forum don't only get one side of the story.

In 2003, Ed Coyle presents a keynote lecture at ACSM and rather interestingly (or not), there wasn't a shred of data less than 10ys old presented. Throughout the rest of the conference, there was much discussion of Ed's presentation, and several of the world's leading cycling physiologists are disappointed that Ed hasn't done anything new and is sadly, quite out of date.

(speculation from here) Time passes and fearing that he might indeed be fading into obscurity wrt elite performance publications, Ed decides to publish the data he has on LA because at the VIP meeting in St Louis everyone thinks it is a great idea. (end speculation).

(regardless of speculation) Unfortunately the data set is racked full of error and employs a testing protocol that nobody ever in the history of exercise physiology used to determine cycling efficiency. Even though it is noted that obvious limitations are contained in the poster presentation, Ed decides to publish in JAP anyway. How it manages to be accepted in the first place, nobody knows, but pretty much instantly, Australian scientists realise that the paper, a case study, is disturbingly full of error and does not represent anything close to the high standard that JAP demands, so they write letters to the editor. The same criticisms are echoed by other eminent cycling scientists the world over. It goes all the way to the board of the University where Ed works and it is acknowledged by this board that serious concerns regarding the scientific validity of the paper exist, but not enough to represent scientific misconduct (which could result in Ed being fired from his job). The Australian scientists respect Ed and never wanted it to go that far, all they wanted was for the science to be valid. The Australian scientists ask Ed for the data set (including calibration records) so that they can validate the calculations. Ed says that he "lost" the data (even though he managed not to loose it for 5-10yrs prior to this point, and a requirement of publishing in JAP is that you must keep all raw data for a period of 5yrs after the publication).

Armstrong's attorneys decide they can use Ed's paper as some form of justification for LAs superior physiological capacity in the SCA case. Ed testifies as an expert witness even though he knows that serious problems with the validity of the paper exist and his expert opinions are very much in the minority (and still are).

 

[Cozy Beehive]

With all due respect, don't flatter yourself too much: I only read the thread title.

Ah. There's a body too you know. Contains lots more material you know. Still "honing" your debating/reading skills?

 

[buckwheat]

Ah. There's a body too you know. Contains lots more material you know. Still "honing" your debating/reading skills?

The guy even has to hedge an insult.

 

[acoggan]

Oh this looks like a fun game. Hope you don't mind if I add another version.... you know, just so the readers of this forum don't only get one side of the story.

In 2003, Ed Coyle presents a keynote lecture at ACSM and rather interestingly (or not), there wasn't a shred of data less than 10ys old presented. Throughout the rest of the conference, there was much discussion of Ed's presentation, and several of the world's leading cycling physiologists are disappointed that Ed hasn't done anything new and is sadly, quite out of date.

(speculation from here) Time passes and fearing that he might indeed be fading into obscurity wrt elite performance publications, Ed decides to publish the data he has on LA because at the VIP meeting in St Louis everyone thinks it is a great idea. (end speculation).

(regardless of speculation) Unfortunately the data set is racked full of error and employs a testing protocol that nobody ever in the history of exercise physiology used to determine cycling efficiency. Even though it is noted that obvious limitations are contained in the poster presentation, Ed decides to publish in JAP anyway. How it manages to be accepted in the first place, nobody knows, but pretty much instantly, Australian scientists realise that the paper, a case study, is disturbingly full of error and does not represent anything close to the high standard that JAP demands, so they write letters to the editor. The same criticisms are echoed by other eminent cycling scientists the world over. It goes all the way to the board of the University where Ed works and it is acknowledged by this board that serious concerns regarding the scientific validity of the paper exist, but not enough to represent scientific misconduct (which could result in Ed being fired from his job). The Australian scientists respect Ed and never wanted it to go that far, all they wanted was for the science to be valid. The Australian scientists ask Ed for the data set (including calibration records) so that they can validate the calculations. Ed says that he "lost" the data (even though he managed not to loose it for 5-10yrs prior to this point, and a requirement of publishing in JAP is that you must keep all raw data for a period of 5yrs after the publication).

Armstrong's attorneys decide they can use Ed's paper as some form of justification for LAs superior physiological capacity in the SCA case. Ed testifies as an expert witness even though he knows that serious problems with the validity of the paper exist and his expert opinions are very much in the minority (and still are).

That sounds entirely plausible/factual to me, except for a few things:

1) Ed's poster at the meeting honoring John Holloszy was met with the same criticisms re. the incompleteness of the data as have been directed against the paper that ultimately resulted (although such criticisms were obviously leveled far less harshly, as no one took the poster too seriously, and everyone considered themselves among friends);

2) it is patently false to state that Ed used "...a testing protocol that nobody ever in the history of exercise physiology used to determine cycling efficiency". Proof of this fact can be found in the letters-to-editor published in JAP;

3) JAP does not have the policy you assert that they do.

Regardless of these errors, your interpretation of the events, individuals, and actions in question is still a far cry from the common misconception that Coyle's paper was somehow commissioned by Armstrong to be used as a defense against allegations of doping.

 

[Kennf1]

Don't know if this has been addressed in the million-plus posts concerning Coyle and Coggan, but ...

I recall Lemond saying that he confronted Coyle at a seminar regarding the efficiency study and asked him if he (Coyle) knew that Armstrong had been working with Ferrari. Coyle did not, and apparently acted "shocked" to hear the news. Has Coyle ever discussed this encounter or addressed the Ferrari connection?

 

[buckwheat]

Don't know if this has been addressed in the million-plus posts concerning Coyle and Coggan, but ...

I recall Lemond saying that he confronted Coyle at a seminar regarding the efficiency study and asked him if he (Coyle) knew that Armstrong had been working with Ferrari. Coyle did not, and apparently acted "shocked" to hear the news. Has Coyle ever discussed this encounter or addressed the Ferrari connection?

Good point!

You really don't expect a straight answer, do you?

 

[acoggan]

Unfortunately the data set is racked full of error and employs a testing protocol that nobody ever in the history of exercise physiology used to determine cycling efficiency. Even though it is noted that obvious limitations are contained in the poster presentation, Ed decides to publish in JAP anyway. How it manages to be accepted in the first place, nobody knows, but pretty much instantly, Australian scientists realise that the paper, a case study, is disturbingly full of error

So I have to ask...do these same Australian scientists feel any regret over their obvious association with this paper:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15241718

which reports what are clearly implausibly low values for gross efficiency? Where were their impeccably-high standards then??

The saying that comes to mind here is:

"People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones."

 

[buckwheat]

So I have to ask...do these same Australian scientists feel any regret over co-authoring this paper:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15241718

which reports what are clearly implausibly low values for gross efficiency? Where were their impeccably-high standards then??

The saying that comes to mind here is:

"People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones."

I think the Australians were alleging misconduct, not poor work.

 

[acoggan]

Don't know if this has been addressed in the million-plus posts concerning Coyle and Coggan, but ...

I recall Lemond saying that he confronted Coyle at a seminar regarding the efficiency study and asked him if he (Coyle) knew that Armstrong had been working with Ferrari. Coyle did not, and apparently acted "shocked" to hear the news. Has Coyle ever discussed this encounter or addressed the Ferrari connection?

Discussed with whom? Me? The answer to that question would be no. In fact, outside of the conversation we had in St. Louis in 2002 about his poster re. Armstrong, Ed and I have never discussed him at all.

I do, though, recall reading somewhere or another about the encounter you describe - perhaps it took place after the 2003 ACSM presentation that Kreb's cycle mentions? (I wasn't at that meeting - in fact, I've only been to a couple of ACSM meeting in the last decade, and even then usually only for one day.)

 

[acoggan]

I think the Australians were alleging misconduct, not poor work.

No, their allegation is/was that Ed's paper represented "shoddy science", with Ashenden himself publically admitting that his primary motivation in doing so was to attempt to prove Armstrong's guilt. It is only when Ed did not come up with the data that they were seeking that allegations of misconduct were made.

(BTW, in the interests of full disclosure: I am good friends with Jim Martin, a co-author on that paper, and at least on friendly terms with Dave Martin, despite our differences of opinion on the matters in question. In fact, just yesterday I received a wheel that I am borrowing from Jim for some aero testing, and I briefly chatted with Dave only ~1 mo ago, when he was visiting Jim in Utah after the ACSM meetings. I haven't spoken to Asker in a number of years, but helped him extensively during his dissertation research, and assume that we are still on good terms despite my pointing out the obvious problems with this paper.)

 

[acoggan]

So I have to ask...do these same Australian scientists feel any regret over their obvious association with this paper:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15241718

which reports what are clearly implausibly low values for gross efficiency?

Sometimes a picture is worth a thousand words:

Note that a high metabolic rate - plotted on the y axis - at a given power output - plotted on the x axis - corresponds to a low efficiency. Also note that although the ACSM prediction equation is based upon studies of untrained individuals exercising at lower power outputs than those produced by highly-trained/professional cyclists, it is consistent with equations based specifically on the latter population, and if anything you would expect it to over-, not under-, estimate the metabolic cost in a trained cyclist.