"It's Not About the Drugs"

B. Lafferty wrote:
A question, if I may. Are you aware of any serious critique of the Vayer
analysis found in the Walsh book? If there is, please point me in that
direction with a citation. Thanks!

Hey Laffhole,

How about
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...263931f9c08ad0

Just to refresh, since you seem to have forgotten, that's where
you posted an excerpt under an alias and Chung and a few others
picked out the bonehead math errors.

Can't imagine how you could have forgotten.

Bob Schwartz

B. Lafferty wrote:

A question, if I may. Are you aware of any serious critique of the Vayer
analysis found in the Walsh book? If there is, please point me in that
direction with a citation. Thanks!

The question of the rising average speed of the TdF with time
was addressed here, where it's seen that the average speed is
most strongly related to the total distance, and once the distance
effect is taken out, there is not a convincing trend with time:

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...a018ac017d9bf7

That doesn't address the Vayer analysis of hill-climbing, which
Bob Schwartz pointed to. From what I've seen Vayer's analyses
mostly come down to pointing out that some feat is incredible,
and deducing that therefore it is impossible (w/o dopage). This
isn't really an argument.

To make even a circumstantial argument, one would like to see
numbers that (for example) show a sharp jump with time. For
example, if everyone before 1990 climbed Alpe d'Huez in 50 minutes
and all the winners after climbed it in 30, you would start to
wonder - but the actual numbers are Coppi 44' in 1952, Pantani
37.6' in 1997, so it's close enough to never prove anything.
We've been over this before here, of course.

wrote in news:1122823575.605623.72880
@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:


the article tries to explain that there isn't really a black and white
in lance armstrong. those who say he's doping, can't prove it. but
neither can those who say he's clean.



Thanks for your post. You said that people who say Armstrong is clean (for
example, Lance Armstrong himself) can't prove it. How is one supposed to
prove a negative? What could Lance do to "prove" he's clean?

I understand he could not associate with the likes of Dr. Ferrari to lessen
suspicion (and I think he has cut ties) and he can let himself be tested
whenever doping control chooses to test him (which is already the case) but
what else can a guy do to prove he's NOT doping?

It seems to me that the requirement of proof lies solely in the hands of the
accusers (like Walsh or Lafferty) and until they can come up with proof
their accusations don't mean much.

People claim to have seen Bigfoot and the Loch Ness Monster. No one has
ever claimed (to my knowledge) to have seen Armstrong use dope. Does that
mean that there is more proof for the existence of the Loch Ness monster
than there is that Armstrong dopes? You hear lots of stories that go
something like "I knew someone in Austin years ago who says that blah blah
blah blah blah..." but no one has ever said "I sold him dope" or "I did dope
with him".

If he is guilty then he's a fraud and a cheat and deserves whatever
punishment gets doled out. But unless he gets caught he deserves, like all
people, the benefit of the doubt.

DC wrote:
How is one supposed to prove a negative?

This "you can't prove a negative" thingy is totally misguided.

Without asserting anything, just for logical discourse:

"Lance is a doper."
"Lance has never doped."
"Lance is clean."
"Lance has taken dope once."

What of the above is the mythical non-provable negative?

wrote in message
ups.com...
vayer's argument ... it doesn't hold a lot of water, in the same way as
*all* the lance arguments (pro and anti) don't hold a lot of water.
they're not supported by strong evidence. too many of them come down to
what an individual wants to believe, and are just used as supporting
buttresses for that belief system. vayer's argument seem to boil down
to the fact that "man goes up hill fast? drugs are the only answer."

i'm sure you can give an alalytical response to an argument that itself
is not nearly as analytical as it pretends to be. vayer's statistics
don't wash, no with me anyway. can you compare the times to go up the
same mountain in different races? what about all the contributory
factors, from weather through tactics through where the mountain falls
in a particular race. you also have to account for the overall changes
in the race itself - shorter, flatter, less tiring (though still not
easy). there would also seem to be an assumption on vayer's part that,
on a climb, riders go balls out base to summit. that simply doesn't
hold water. there are, at the end of the day, too many assumptions in
vayer's analysis.

on the other hand, there is a relevence to vayer's argument. michele
ferrari had certain areas of specialisation. vo2 max and hill climbing
being the important ones, where vayer's argument is concerned. maybe
vayer does have a point. but i don't think it's a well made point. but
then, maybe he was afraid of ferrari suing him, and so couched it too
carefully.


The hill climbing part of the analysis seems to be the most certain of what
he did. You know the rider's weight, the weight of his machine, the
distance and gradient climbed and the time for same. I'd like to see
someone with the expertise of a Keen (or Ferrari?) respond to that portion
of Vayer's analysis.

The "experts*" of rbr have given Vayer short shrift, deriding him as a mere
"gym teacher." And yet, much the same formula appears to have been used by
Floyd Landis' coach in projecting what was probably Floyd's maximum
sustained climbing output on at least one major climb this year. IIRC, that
number was around 370 watts.

*Andrew Coggan, perhaps the most expert in exercise physiology posting here,
has not, to my knowledge, done a point by point analysis of what Vayer has
written in the Walsh book. I'd like to see a magazine like ProCycling pull
together several experts for a discussion of what Vayer has done.

"Sandy" wrote in message
...

The only race Armstrong won, of 20 in this year's tour, was one time
trial, and nothing in line.

Sandy, I'm sure that you're well aware that the reason for this is that the
organizers intended to build a course that played against every Armstrong
weakness. The mountain stages often had finishes a long way from the peak,
the stages were so long that they had to be raced in survival mode etc. It
is actually a compliment to Armstong that they felt it necessary to try to
make such a course to defeat him and yet still failed.

"B. Lafferty" wrote in message
news

wrote in message
ups.com...
vayer's argument ... it doesn't hold a lot of water, in the same way
as
*all* the lance arguments (pro and anti) don't hold a lot of water.
they're not supported by strong evidence. too many of them come down
to
what an individual wants to believe, and are just used as supporting
buttresses for that belief system. vayer's argument seem to boil down
to the fact that "man goes up hill fast? drugs are the only answer."

i'm sure you can give an alalytical response to an argument that
itself
is not nearly as analytical as it pretends to be. vayer's statistics
don't wash, no with me anyway. can you compare the times to go up the
same mountain in different races? what about all the contributory
factors, from weather through tactics through where the mountain
falls
in a particular race. you also have to account for the overall
changes
in the race itself - shorter, flatter, less tiring (though still not
easy). there would also seem to be an assumption on vayer's part
that,
on a climb, riders go balls out base to summit. that simply doesn't
hold water. there are, at the end of the day, too many assumptions in
vayer's analysis.

on the other hand, there is a relevence to vayer's argument. michele
ferrari had certain areas of specialisation. vo2 max and hill
climbing
being the important ones, where vayer's argument is concerned. maybe
vayer does have a point. but i don't think it's a well made point.
but
then, maybe he was afraid of ferrari suing him, and so couched it too
carefully.


The hill climbing part of the analysis seems to be the most certain of
what he did. You know the rider's weight, the weight of his machine,
the distance and gradient climbed and the time for same. I'd like to
see someone with the expertise of a Keen (or Ferrari?) respond to that
portion of Vayer's analysis.

The "experts*" of rbr have given Vayer short shrift, deriding him as a
mere "gym teacher." And yet, much the same formula appears to have
been used by Floyd Landis' coach in projecting what was probably
Floyd's maximum sustained climbing output on at least one major climb
this year. IIRC, that number was around 370 watts.

*Andrew Coggan, perhaps the most expert in exercise physiology posting
here, has not, to my knowledge, done a point by point analysis of what
Vayer has written in the Walsh book. I'd like to see a magazine like
ProCycling pull together several experts for a discussion of what
Vayer has done.
Using Andrew Coggan's power tables, a world class cyclist can
develop 6.14 watts per kg of body weight whereas a world champion can
develop 6.62 over a 20 minute time period (assuming Lance weighs about
70kg this equates to 463 watts). In climbing and given the same body
weight this will result in almost the same proportions in climbing
speed. Say 15 mph versus 16 mph. As for FL's unremarkable 370 watts,
that's about equivalent to what a UCI division III pro can sustain for
20 minutes.
Vayer's analysis boils down to Armstrong being the best so he must
use drugs with a bunch of very unscientific comparisons and estimates
thrown in to sway the uninformed.

Phil H

"Philip Holman" wrote in message
...

"B. Lafferty" wrote in message
news

wrote in message
ups.com...
vayer's argument ... it doesn't hold a lot of water, in the same way as
*all* the lance arguments (pro and anti) don't hold a lot of water.
they're not supported by strong evidence. too many of them come down to
what an individual wants to believe, and are just used as supporting
buttresses for that belief system. vayer's argument seem to boil down
to the fact that "man goes up hill fast? drugs are the only answer."

i'm sure you can give an alalytical response to an argument that itself
is not nearly as analytical as it pretends to be. vayer's statistics
don't wash, no with me anyway. can you compare the times to go up the
same mountain in different races? what about all the contributory
factors, from weather through tactics through where the mountain falls
in a particular race. you also have to account for the overall changes
in the race itself - shorter, flatter, less tiring (though still not
easy). there would also seem to be an assumption on vayer's part that,
on a climb, riders go balls out base to summit. that simply doesn't
hold water. there are, at the end of the day, too many assumptions in
vayer's analysis.

on the other hand, there is a relevence to vayer's argument. michele
ferrari had certain areas of specialisation. vo2 max and hill climbing
being the important ones, where vayer's argument is concerned. maybe
vayer does have a point. but i don't think it's a well made point. but
then, maybe he was afraid of ferrari suing him, and so couched it too
carefully.


The hill climbing part of the analysis seems to be the most certain of
what he did. You know the rider's weight, the weight of his machine, the
distance and gradient climbed and the time for same. I'd like to see
someone with the expertise of a Keen (or Ferrari?) respond to that
portion of Vayer's analysis.

The "experts*" of rbr have given Vayer short shrift, deriding him as a
mere "gym teacher." And yet, much the same formula appears to have been
used by Floyd Landis' coach in projecting what was probably Floyd's
maximum sustained climbing output on at least one major climb this year.
IIRC, that number was around 370 watts.

*Andrew Coggan, perhaps the most expert in exercise physiology posting
here, has not, to my knowledge, done a point by point analysis of what
Vayer has written in the Walsh book. I'd like to see a magazine like
ProCycling pull together several experts for a discussion of what Vayer
has done.
Using Andrew Coggan's power tables, a world class cyclist can develop
6.14 watts per kg of body weight whereas a world champion can develop 6.62
over a 20 minute time period (assuming Lance weighs about 70kg this
equates to 463 watts). In climbing and given the same body weight this
will result in almost the same proportions in climbing speed. Say 15 mph
versus 16 mph. As for FL's unremarkable 370 watts, that's about equivalent
to what a UCI division III pro can sustain for 20 minutes.
Vayer's analysis boils down to Armstrong being the best so he must use
drugs with a bunch of very unscientific comparisons and estimates thrown
in to sway the uninformed.

Phil H

Looking at http://www.cyclingpeakssoftware.com/...profile_v3.gif it
appears that the top level Coggan presents at functional threshold is 6.4
Consider that Armstrong is, according to Vayer and Ferrari as quoted in
Coyle's book, putting out a ft level of 480-500 watts with a magic number of
6.7 (according to Ferrari)
This is all done with a measured VO2Max of 82 or 83. Eddie Coyle speculates
that Armstrong *may* have a VO2Max at present of 85 (Coyle has apparently
not been able to confirm that speculation with lab tests). Coyle goes
through a rather labored attempt to explain this FT power output by
speculative muscle fiber conversion theories not supported by muscle biopsy
and hyperbaric living. But there are other possible explanations.

What Vayer asserts is that Armstrong's FT output is virtually impossible
with the VO2Max that he has. BTW, Floyd Landis has a VO2Max of 90 and
Ullrich's is 88. I'd like to read a discussion of this by Coggan and others
in the field such as Keen.

"B. Lafferty" wrote in message
news

"Philip Holman" wrote in message
...

"B. Lafferty" wrote in message
news

wrote in message
ups.com...
vayer's argument ... it doesn't hold a lot of water, in the same
way as
*all* the lance arguments (pro and anti) don't hold a lot of water.
they're not supported by strong evidence. too many of them come
down to
what an individual wants to believe, and are just used as
supporting
buttresses for that belief system. vayer's argument seem to boil
down
to the fact that "man goes up hill fast? drugs are the only
answer."

i'm sure you can give an alalytical response to an argument that
itself
is not nearly as analytical as it pretends to be. vayer's
statistics
don't wash, no with me anyway. can you compare the times to go up
the
same mountain in different races? what about all the contributory
factors, from weather through tactics through where the mountain
falls
in a particular race. you also have to account for the overall
changes
in the race itself - shorter, flatter, less tiring (though still
not
easy). there would also seem to be an assumption on vayer's part
that,
on a climb, riders go balls out base to summit. that simply doesn't
hold water. there are, at the end of the day, too many assumptions
in
vayer's analysis.

on the other hand, there is a relevence to vayer's argument.
michele
ferrari had certain areas of specialisation. vo2 max and hill
climbing
being the important ones, where vayer's argument is concerned.
maybe
vayer does have a point. but i don't think it's a well made point.
but
then, maybe he was afraid of ferrari suing him, and so couched it
too
carefully.


The hill climbing part of the analysis seems to be the most certain
of what he did. You know the rider's weight, the weight of his
machine, the distance and gradient climbed and the time for same.
I'd like to see someone with the expertise of a Keen (or Ferrari?)
respond to that portion of Vayer's analysis.

The "experts*" of rbr have given Vayer short shrift, deriding him as
a mere "gym teacher." And yet, much the same formula appears to
have been used by Floyd Landis' coach in projecting what was
probably Floyd's maximum sustained climbing output on at least one
major climb this year. IIRC, that number was around 370 watts.

*Andrew Coggan, perhaps the most expert in exercise physiology
posting here, has not, to my knowledge, done a point by point
analysis of what Vayer has written in the Walsh book. I'd like to
see a magazine like ProCycling pull together several experts for a
discussion of what Vayer has done.
Using Andrew Coggan's power tables, a world class cyclist can
develop 6.14 watts per kg of body weight whereas a world champion can
develop 6.62 over a 20 minute time period (assuming Lance weighs
about 70kg this equates to 463 watts). In climbing and given the same
body weight this will result in almost the same proportions in
climbing speed. Say 15 mph versus 16 mph. As for FL's unremarkable
370 watts, that's about equivalent to what a UCI division III pro can
sustain for 20 minutes.
Vayer's analysis boils down to Armstrong being the best so he must
use drugs with a bunch of very unscientific comparisons and estimates
thrown in to sway the uninformed.

Phil H

Looking at
http://www.cyclingpeakssoftware.com/...profile_v3.gif it
appears that the top level Coggan presents at functional threshold is
6.4 Consider that Armstrong is, according to Vayer and Ferrari as
quoted in Coyle's book, putting out a ft level of 480-500 watts with a
magic number of 6.7 (according to Ferrari)
This is all done with a measured VO2Max of 82 or 83. Eddie Coyle
speculates that Armstrong *may* have a VO2Max at present of 85 (Coyle
has apparently not been able to confirm that speculation with lab
tests). Coyle goes through a rather labored attempt to explain this
FT power output by speculative muscle fiber conversion theories not
supported by muscle biopsy and hyperbaric living. But there are other
possible explanations.

What Vayer asserts is that Armstrong's FT output is virtually
impossible with the VO2Max that he has. BTW, Floyd Landis has a
VO2Max of 90 and Ullrich's is 88. I'd like to read a discussion of
this by Coggan and others in the field such as Keen.
It's fairly well known that VO2 Max is NOT a good predictor of athletic
performance and that power output at anaerobic threshold is. Some
athletes can obtain a higher percentage of VO2max at AT. There is plenty
of scientific research to support this. VO2 max also does not take into
account gross efficiency. I hope Andrew Coggan does chip in with his
expert opinion.

Phil H

"Philip Holman" wrote in message
...

"B. Lafferty" wrote in message
news

"Philip Holman" wrote in message
...

"B. Lafferty" wrote in message
news
wrote in message
ups.com...
vayer's argument ... it doesn't hold a lot of water, in the same way
as
*all* the lance arguments (pro and anti) don't hold a lot of water.
they're not supported by strong evidence. too many of them come down
to
what an individual wants to believe, and are just used as supporting
buttresses for that belief system. vayer's argument seem to boil down
to the fact that "man goes up hill fast? drugs are the only answer."

i'm sure you can give an alalytical response to an argument that
itself
is not nearly as analytical as it pretends to be. vayer's statistics
don't wash, no with me anyway. can you compare the times to go up the
same mountain in different races? what about all the contributory
factors, from weather through tactics through where the mountain falls
in a particular race. you also have to account for the overall changes
in the race itself - shorter, flatter, less tiring (though still not
easy). there would also seem to be an assumption on vayer's part that,
on a climb, riders go balls out base to summit. that simply doesn't
hold water. there are, at the end of the day, too many assumptions in
vayer's analysis.

on the other hand, there is a relevence to vayer's argument. michele
ferrari had certain areas of specialisation. vo2 max and hill climbing
being the important ones, where vayer's argument is concerned. maybe
vayer does have a point. but i don't think it's a well made point. but
then, maybe he was afraid of ferrari suing him, and so couched it too
carefully.


The hill climbing part of the analysis seems to be the most certain of
what he did. You know the rider's weight, the weight of his machine,
the distance and gradient climbed and the time for same. I'd like to
see someone with the expertise of a Keen (or Ferrari?) respond to that
portion of Vayer's analysis.

The "experts*" of rbr have given Vayer short shrift, deriding him as a
mere "gym teacher." And yet, much the same formula appears to have
been used by Floyd Landis' coach in projecting what was probably
Floyd's maximum sustained climbing output on at least one major climb
this year. IIRC, that number was around 370 watts.

*Andrew Coggan, perhaps the most expert in exercise physiology posting
here, has not, to my knowledge, done a point by point analysis of what
Vayer has written in the Walsh book. I'd like to see a magazine like
ProCycling pull together several experts for a discussion of what Vayer
has done.
Using Andrew Coggan's power tables, a world class cyclist can develop
6.14 watts per kg of body weight whereas a world champion can develop
6.62 over a 20 minute time period (assuming Lance weighs about 70kg this
equates to 463 watts). In climbing and given the same body weight this
will result in almost the same proportions in climbing speed. Say 15 mph
versus 16 mph. As for FL's unremarkable 370 watts, that's about
equivalent to what a UCI division III pro can sustain for 20 minutes.
Vayer's analysis boils down to Armstrong being the best so he must
use drugs with a bunch of very unscientific comparisons and estimates
thrown in to sway the uninformed.

Phil H

Looking at http://www.cyclingpeakssoftware.com/...profile_v3.gif
it appears that the top level Coggan presents at functional threshold is
6.4 Consider that Armstrong is, according to Vayer and Ferrari as quoted
in Coyle's book, putting out a ft level of 480-500 watts with a magic
number of 6.7 (according to Ferrari)
This is all done with a measured VO2Max of 82 or 83. Eddie Coyle
speculates that Armstrong *may* have a VO2Max at present of 85 (Coyle has
apparently not been able to confirm that speculation with lab tests).
Coyle goes through a rather labored attempt to explain this FT power
output by speculative muscle fiber conversion theories not supported by
muscle biopsy and hyperbaric living. But there are other possible
explanations.

What Vayer asserts is that Armstrong's FT output is virtually impossible
with the VO2Max that he has. BTW, Floyd Landis has a VO2Max of 90 and
Ullrich's is 88. I'd like to read a discussion of this by Coggan and
others in the field such as Keen.


It's fairly well known that VO2 Max is NOT a good predictor of athletic
performance and that power output at anaerobic threshold is. Some athletes
can obtain a higher percentage of VO2max at AT. There is plenty of
scientific research to support this. VO2 max also does not take into
account gross efficiency.

Thus the journal article by Eddie Coyle that really doesn't explain (or
prove) a natural basis for Armstrong's increased efficiency.

.. I hope Andrew Coggan does chip in with his
expert opinion.

Let's hope so.

Phil H