"It's Not About the Drugs"

Ernst Noch wrote in :

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?



I would argue that you could prove that "Lance is a doper" or that "Lance
has taken dope once" by simply coming up with the guy that sold him the dope
or that witnessed him taking it or who taught him how to use it. You just
don't "take" dope without knowing the right people and what to do. Even if
it doesn't prove he doped, you at least have witnesses.

How does Armstrong prove he's NEVER taken dope? How can you prove that? If
he says "I've never tested positive" you say "that doesn't prove anything".
If he says "There are no witnesses" you say "how convenient" or "just none
have been found". There's always an excuse for NOT coming up with proof.

The sad thing about people like Lafferty and Walsh (and, btw, the people who
claim that the U.S. never went to the moon) is that they will go to their
grave believing what they believe even if no evidence comes forth. They
will just continute to say "what he did was not possible, therefore he must
have used dope" regardless of any evidence. It's almost a religious
fanatacism with them.

Once agin, if proof comes out then Armstrong deserves the consequences. But
until then give it a rest.

"B. Lafferty" wrote in message
link.net...

"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.

He does in this one.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...97&query_hl=13

Phil H

DepartFictif wrote:
No, then you're not cheating, because you know it isn't affecting
your performance. You're getting busted for not-cheating.


So by saying that you are saying it is up to every individual to make
up his(or her) own mind as to wether he is doping or not... it's the
individual's morals... dangerouse mate... the door's WFO if you go down
that road..

No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying there is a distinction
between cheating and rule-breaking. Cheating generally requires
intent to subvert the competition (or willful ignorance, like taking
what Willy Voet gives you and pretending not to know what's going on).
Somebody who takes cold medicine that is not performance-enhancing and
gets busted for it is not cheating, but they are breaking the rules.

But like I said, it's an imperfect world. So even if the governing
bodies are completely honest, the best they can do is make a set of
rules that catches cheaters and doesn't catch too many non-cheaters.
You can't make rules that punish people who don't get caught, so
in the end you still have to rely on people's own morals to not
cheat. The problem is when the culture or competitive pressures
of the sport demand that they set their morals aside.


No, I think you have to go by the rules, those are the only true
guidelines that don't involve individuals resting on their moral
upbringing to make a dicision... and sadly, if you go by the rules...
"you don't get cought, you're clean."
(In fact half the time wit lots of federations you can get cought and
still be clean.. but that's a separate issue alltogether. Let not go
into that.)

B. Lafferty wrote:

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.

Oh for crap's sake. Nobody is arguing with the idea that you can plug
weight, gradient and speed into a formula and get power output. It's
not rocket science. Chung, Holman, Schwartz, amit, I, or anyone with
access to http://www.analyticcycling.com, including you, can plug in
the numbers and get an estimate of Armstrong's power.

The part of Vayer's "analysis" that people were poking fun at last
time is the one where he tries to compare riding Alpe d'Huez to
doing leg-lifts with weighted bags on his legs, which is a pretty
meaningless comparison anyway.

A huge problem with Vayer's argument - pointed out by amit at
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...f30b3f00f0cc03
is that you can't go from a wattage figure and a V02max
(or VO2 at threshold etc) to a deduction that the wattage
is reasonable or physiologically impossible or evidence of
doping or whatever. Because there just is not a very good
correlation between V02max and wattage at threshold from
person to person.

*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.

Cooglie only lurks here intermittently, why don't you email
him the English translation and ask him?

Speaking of Floyd's coach Allen Lim, here is an article:

http://www.bicycling.com/tourdefranc...expert,00.html

In the stage 20 TT, his model predicts that Floyd averaged 379 watts.
To ride as fast as Lance, Floyd would have had to put out 410 watts.
(That doesn't mean Lance put out 410 watts, because he has different
weight and aero drag, but somewhere in that neighborhood.)
This is a TT and 1 hour plus, so climbing wattage might be somewhat
different. I don't find either of these numbers incroyable.

That very true... but in the eyes of the law/govering bodies etc...
there is no destinction between cheating and rule breaking. In fact
the whole idea of "cheating" is subjective, so you could say there is
only rule breaking. If I take Amphetamines for some race, you would
say it is cheating (and I would agree with you), but if everyone else
is taking them too, is it still cheating? Well, not really because you
aren't getting an unfair advantage, but it is still rule breaking.

You are dead right, it is an unfair world, and I think you have pretty
much said that there is no actual solution to the probleme, and I would
have to agree with you.

DC wrote:

I would argue that you could prove that "Lance is a doper" or that "Lance
has taken dope once" by simply coming up with the guy that sold him the dope
or that witnessed him taking it or who taught him how to use it. You just
don't "take" dope without knowing the right people and what to do. Even if
it doesn't prove he doped, you at least have witnesses.

How does Armstrong prove he's NEVER taken dope? How can you prove that? If
he says "I've never tested positive" you say "that doesn't prove anything".
If he says "There are no witnesses" you say "how convenient" or "just none
have been found". There's always an excuse for NOT coming up with proof.

The sad thing about people like Lafferty and Walsh (and, btw, the people who
claim that the U.S. never went to the moon) is that they will go to their
grave believing what they believe even if no evidence comes forth. They
will just continute to say "what he did was not possible, therefore he must
have used dope" regardless of any evidence. It's almost a religious
fanatacism with them.

Once agin, if proof comes out then Armstrong deserves the consequences. But
until then give it a rest.

I'll stay out of the Lance is doping debate. My only point was one can't
take the matter into philosophy or whatever by applying a general (and
wrong) principle like "you can't prove a negative".
Otherwise I agree with everything you say, and also about the practical
(not principal) issues when trying to prove "Lance has never doped".

Once agin, if proof comes out then Armstrong deserves the consequences. But
until then give it a rest.

You like this one don't you?! Again, I think it is too simplistic a
view.

Consider: he's found to have been +ve, they take a title away from him,
and give it to 2nd place; ie: someone who (may have) used the same
stuff... would that be OK? Would he have got what he decerved?

Sandy wrote:

Another thing I didn't like is the riders=Robocop cliche.
I gather this is popular among Armstrong-haters in France

No defense of France here, but I think you (and lots of others) may be
concocting your own vision of what the French think. On TV, FR2, for
example, he is the focus of enormous enthusiasm, idolatry, admiration and
respect, as a cyclist. Recently, the slightly "hot" version of Armstrong -
the Sheryl Crow stuff - makes him even more enviable and popular.

I didn't intend to imply that it was common in all of France,
(last week I was defending Leblanc from the charge of anti-Lanceism),
just a cliche among a minority with anti-Armstrong sentiment.
Google "robocop" in this newsgroup to find some of Ilan's posts
on the subject.

What I have written, what some (not all) French feel, is that broad scale
racing has suffered from the overwhelming focus on a single event. It's not
just Armstrong's monomania that nettles. It's the market domination and
dilution that accompanies it. I mentioned that if the World Series
(baseball) were like the Pro Tour and the TdF, no one would have to win
regularly, just show up for the round-robin final by invitation. And a
little like golf, where course management is all that counts towards the
final score.

The only race Armstrong won, of 20 in this year's tour, was one time trial,
and nothing in line. He is a masterful rider, and those who want to chant
"Drugs, drugs, drugs" seem more envious than critical. He wanted only one
prize, he did all possible to achieve it, and did it 7 times. Criticism is
not exclusively French in character, although I think Europeans are more
sanguine about doping.

Well, he certainly raced this one conservatively. I think he got
more conservative as he aged, which is prudent, but less exciting.
I would like to see more of a free for all now that he is gone, and
surely the next Tour will be more wide open, but I wouldn't be
surprised to see elements of conservative racing again. The stakes
are too high for anyone but a complete dark horse to take a big
gamble.


Armstrong says he has finished. The next tour is eleven months away. I
sure hope other subjects manage to attract attention. This forum could
cavitate from the absence of both in the interim, and it would not be all
that bad.

Well, the volume of posting always drops off after July. For
the OP of this thread, Armstrong appears gone but not forgotten.
A year from now, we may have found something else to talk about.
I wonder how the rbr volume and the US interest in bike racing
will taper off next year.

DC wrote:


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?

Now that he's retired and no longer relies on trade secrets, making
public his training journals and US Postal/Discovery team doctor notes
(they can't be confdential if the patient wishes them disclosed, can
they?) will go a long way to determine if there were any wasps involved.
Transparency is the way to go, but LANCE is anything but transparent.

In article , Ernst Noch
wrote:

Ryan Cousineau wrote:

[insightful analysis snipped]

And add to that the publicity factor. Suddenly, all the achievements in
the sport would be seen as a lone result of taking pharmaceutical
products and medicine.
Fake boobs work although everybody knows they are fake. But I think that
won't work in cycling.

I hope you'll pardon me for a self-aggrandizing rant, but I want to
kinda extend with a problem he I keep posting variations of my
theory, and it mostly gets met with silence. I don't really see a lot of
responses from the pro-doping crowd.

My thoughts on cosmetic surgery redacted, because archives are forever
.

--
Ryan Cousineau http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos