Still waiting ...

"Steven L. Sheffield" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

... for Lafferty's assessment of why Haven is still a virgin, but Amber
isn't ...

As I said, it's too subjective for rbr.

Quoted message said:

Will we see Kunich's proof that Merckx was paid not to ride the 1973 Tour
de
France first?

You'll never see Eunuch's proof. There isn't any.

On 07/23/2006 08:01 AM, in article
[email hidden], "B. Lafferty"

Quoted message said:

"Steven L. Sheffield" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

... for Lafferty's assessment of why Haven is still a virgin, but Amber
isn't ...

As I said, it's too subjective for rbr.

Offlist is fine ...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Will we see Kunich's proof that Merckx was paid not to ride the 1973 Tour
de
France first?

You'll never see Eunuch's proof. There isn't any.

in message <[email hidden]>, B.

Lafferty (') said:

"Steven L. Sheffield" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

... for Lafferty's assessment of why Haven is still a virgin, but
Amber isn't ...

As I said, it's too subjective for rbr.

Quoted message said:

Will we see Kunich's proof that Merckx was paid not to ride the 1973
Tour de
France first?

You'll never see Eunuch's proof. There isn't any.

Pot, meet kettle.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
;; Skill without imagination is craftsmanship and gives us
;; many useful objects such as wickerwork picnic baskets.
;; Imagination without skill gives us modern art.
;; Tom Stoppard, Artist Descending A Staircase

B. Lafferty said:

"Steven L. Sheffield" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

... for Lafferty's assessment of why Haven is still a virgin, but Amber
isn't ...

Quoted message said:

As I said, it's too subjective for rbr.

How do you explain the daughter? Another virgin birth?

-ThH

On 07/23/2006 10:01 AM, in article
[email hidden], "Thurston Howell IV"

Quoted message said:

B. Lafferty said:

"Steven L. Sheffield" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

... for Lafferty's assessment of why Haven is still a virgin, but Amber
isn't ...

Quoted message said:

As I said, it's too subjective for rbr.

How do you explain the daughter? Another virgin birth?

Last I checked, Tyler and Haven don't have children ... just dogs.

Steven L. Sheffield said:

Last I checked, Tyler and Haven don't have children ... just dogs.

Ignore me, I'm just a dumbass.

-ThH

"Thurston Howell IV" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

B. Lafferty said:

"Steven L. Sheffield" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

... for Lafferty's assessment of why Haven is still a virgin, but Amber
isn't ...

Quoted message said:

As I said, it's too subjective for rbr.

How do you explain the daughter? Another virgin birth?

-ThH

Haven has a daughter?

Thurston Howell IV said:

Quoted message said:

How do you explain the daughter? Another virgin birth?

Steven L. Sheffield said:

Last I checked, Tyler and Haven don't have children ... just dogs.

That makes it even worse, if tugboat was really one of their offspring.

On 07/23/2006 08:01 AM, in article
[email hidden], "B. Lafferty"

Quoted message said:

"Steven L. Sheffield" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

... for Lafferty's assessment of why Haven is still a virgin, but Amber
isn't ...

As I said, it's too subjective for rbr.

Still waiting ... Or do you get to live by different standards than those to
which you're trying to hold Eunuch?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Will we see Kunich's proof that Merckx was paid not to ride the 1973 Tour
de
France first?

You'll never see Eunuch's proof. There isn't any.

"Steven L. Sheffield" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On 07/23/2006 08:01 AM, in article
[email hidden], "B. Lafferty"

Quoted message said:

"Steven L. Sheffield" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

... for Lafferty's assessment of why Haven is still a virgin, but Amber
isn't ...

As I said, it's too subjective for rbr.

Still waiting ... Or do you get to live by different standards than those
to
which you're trying to hold Eunuch?

Do you still beat your significant other?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Will we see Kunich's proof that Merckx was paid not to ride the 1973
Tour
de
France first?

You'll never see Eunuch's proof. There isn't any.

On 07/25/2006 05:07 AM, in article
[email hidden], "B. Lafferty"

Quoted message said:

"Steven L. Sheffield" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On 07/23/2006 08:01 AM, in article
[email hidden], "B. Lafferty"

Quoted message said:

"Steven L. Sheffield" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
>
> ... for Lafferty's assessment of why Haven is still a virgin, but Amber
> isn't ...

As I said, it's too subjective for rbr.

Still waiting ... Or do you get to live by different standards than those
to
which you're trying to hold Eunuch?

Do you still beat your significant other?

On occasion, typically when my wife is out of town, but I prefer the term
"wanking", "masturbation", or even "auto-eroticism" ...

"Beating your significant other" is a new euphemism on me ... and sounds far
to violent for what is typically considered to be an act of self-love (or at
the very least, a release of sexual tension).

So now that I've answered your questions, when are you going to answer mine?

A) Why do you believe that Haven is still a virgin?

B) Why should we hold you to a different standard than that to which you
hold Kunich? If you want him to provide evidence of one of his
pronouncements, then why shouldn't you be required to provide evidence of
one of your pronouncements?

Steven L. Sheffield said:

... for Lafferty's assessment of why Haven is still a virgin, but Amber
isn't ...

Forget that - I'm still waiting for his explanation as to why
Armstrong's power could only be achieved via doping, but Landis'
comparable power can't be taken as evidence of such.

Andy Coggan

Steven L. Sheffield said:

Quoted message said:

... for Lafferty's assessment of why Haven is still a virgin, but Amber
isn't ...

acoggan said:

Forget that - I'm still waiting for his explanation as to why
Armstrong's power could only be achieved via doping, but Landis'
comparable power can't be taken as evidence of such.

Perhaps the two are connected.

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Steven L. Sheffield said:

... for Lafferty's assessment of why Haven is still a virgin, but Amber
isn't ...

Forget that - I'm still waiting for his explanation as to why
Armstrong's power could only be achieved via doping, but Landis'
comparable power can't be taken as evidence of such.

Andy Coggan

And I'm still waiting for Professor Candyass' response to this:

I'm waiting to see your explanation for his [Armstrong] ability to put out
the wattages
for the periods of time that he did while climbing. No doubt it was all due
to efficiency and economy from training. Correct?

B. Lafferty said:

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Steven L. Sheffield said:

... for Lafferty's assessment of why Haven is still a virgin, but Amber
isn't ...

Forget that - I'm still waiting for his explanation as to why
Armstrong's power could only be achieved via doping, but Landis'
comparable power can't be taken as evidence of such.

Andy Coggan

And I'm still waiting for Professor Candyass' response to this:

I'm waiting to see your explanation for his [Armstrong] ability to put out
the wattages
for the periods of time that he did while climbing. No doubt it was all due
to efficiency and economy from training. Correct?

Allow me to repeat myself: I have not seen any data that would convince
me otherwise.

Andy Coggan

B. Lafferty said:

If you have any doubts, give us your assumptions before you start crunching.

How's this for starters (using the quote that Benjo Maso provided):

"[Ferrari] drew the line, and came up with the threshold Armstrong
already guessed he was.

Four hundred and seventy watts.

The number had an immediate effect; it soaked into him, it vibrated in
the soft spring air. He was 470, 40 watts higher than this time last
year, the same number he was last June, just before the Tour. The
same! It was a short test, which usually based higher, but still, it
was promising news. To get to 6.7, he had to get 30 watts more
powerful,
and lose 5.5 kilos, and he had six months to do it.

(....) It was good to enjoy it, because the feeling wouldn't last. In
fact, it was disappearing even now, evaporating as Armstrong leaned
over to look at Ferrari's graph paper.

"What did Floyd get?" Armstrong asked Ferrari. The doctor pointed a
pencil tip toward a line: Landis had 420 watts but he only weighed
sixty-nine kilos (152 pounds). Landis was faster.

Quoted message said:

From Daniel Coyle, ``Armstrong's War'.

Based on the above description, it sounds as if Ferrari estimated
Armstrong's and Landis' maximal sustainable power based on lactate
responses during an incremental exercise test using average-length
stages. There are limitations to this approach, and we don't know
exactly what criteria Ferrari used to define "threshold", but the
values seem quite reasonable in light of other data (e.g., Lim's
estimates that Landis averaged 417-425 W during the first ITT this
year), so I'll go with them...here's what we know/can deduce:

1) Landis power/mass was 6.09 W/kg

2) this was higher than Armstrong's at the time of the test

3) Armstrong's absolute power was 470 W

4) to get to 6.7 W/kg, he had increase his power to 500 W, and reduce
his body mass by 5.5 kg.

Quoted message said:

From #3 and #4 above, we can conclude that at the time of the test,

Armstrong weighed 80.1 kg. This would make his power/mass at the time
to be 5.9 W/kg, i.e., consistent with #1 and #2.

Now moving on...Armstrong's VO2max (in mL/min/kg) is reportedly
somewhere in the low to mid 80's. However, even if it were "only" 80
mL/min/kg, then his absolute VO2max was 6.4 L/min. Indeed, quoting
Coyle (Edward, not Daniel): "VO2 max during the competitive season of
1993, soon after winning the World Road Racing Championships (September
1993), was 6.1 l/min and 81.2 ml/kg/min, results that were corroborated
by the United States Olympic Committee (Colorado Springs, CO)."*

If you then accept that 1) he could sustain 90% of his VO2max for the
duration of, e.g., l'alpe de Huez, and 2) he had high-average cycling
efficiency, then his power when climbing would have been 475-500 W,
i.e., consistent with the quote from Coyle's book. The only real
question, then, is whether loss of 5+ kg of body mass would have
adversely affected his VO2max, and hence his ability to produce power.
That we don't know, but given that 1) he raced quite successfully in
1993 at 75 kg (calculated from quote above), and 2) he reportedly lost
some upper body mass as a result of cancer cachexia (a common
occurrence), then I think it is quite possible that he could have
dropped to the 72-74 kg he reportedly raced his Tours at w/o any
negative effects (aside from being hungry much of the time!).

*Although 6.1 L/min is 5% lower than the 6.4 L/min estimate I derived,
the fact that the OTC is at 1860 m could easily account for the
difference. The reason that Coyle (again, Edward, not Daniel) reported
a lower value likely reflects the fact that 1) Armstrong only went to
UT-Austin for testing in the off-season, and 2) the metabolic cart
there (which I built/modified) tends to underestimate VO2 slightly.

Conclusion: I have yet to see any physiological or power data on
Armstrong that could be taken as definitive proof of doping. (OTOH, the
above can't really be taken as proof that he didn't dope, either.)

Andy Coggan

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

B. Lafferty said:

If you have any doubts, give us your assumptions before you start
crunching.

How's this for starters (using the quote that Benjo Maso provided):

"[Ferrari] drew the line, and came up with the threshold Armstrong
already guessed he was.

Four hundred and seventy watts.

The number had an immediate effect; it soaked into him, it vibrated in
the soft spring air. He was 470, 40 watts higher than this time last
year, the same number he was last June, just before the Tour. The
same! It was a short test, which usually based higher, but still, it
was promising news. To get to 6.7, he had to get 30 watts more
powerful,
and lose 5.5 kilos, and he had six months to do it.

(....) It was good to enjoy it, because the feeling wouldn't last. In
fact, it was disappearing even now, evaporating as Armstrong leaned
over to look at Ferrari's graph paper.

"What did Floyd get?" Armstrong asked Ferrari. The doctor pointed a
pencil tip toward a line: Landis had 420 watts but he only weighed
sixty-nine kilos (152 pounds). Landis was faster.

Quoted message said:

From Daniel Coyle, ``Armstrong's War'.

Based on the above description, it sounds as if Ferrari estimated
Armstrong's and Landis' maximal sustainable power based on lactate
responses during an incremental exercise test using average-length
stages. There are limitations to this approach, and we don't know
exactly what criteria Ferrari used to define "threshold", but the
values seem quite reasonable in light of other data (e.g., Lim's
estimates that Landis averaged 417-425 W during the first ITT this
year), so I'll go with them...here's what we know/can deduce:

1) Landis power/mass was 6.09 W/kg

2) this was higher than Armstrong's at the time of the test

3) Armstrong's absolute power was 470 W

4) to get to 6.7 W/kg, he had increase his power to 500 W, and reduce
his body mass by 5.5 kg.

Quoted message said:

From #3 and #4 above, we can conclude that at the time of the test,

Armstrong weighed 80.1 kg. This would make his power/mass at the time
to be 5.9 W/kg, i.e., consistent with #1 and #2.

Now moving on...Armstrong's VO2max (in mL/min/kg) is reportedly
somewhere in the low to mid 80's. However, even if it were "only" 80
mL/min/kg, then his absolute VO2max was 6.4 L/min. Indeed, quoting
Coyle (Edward, not Daniel): "VO2 max during the competitive season of
1993, soon after winning the World Road Racing Championships (September
1993), was 6.1 l/min and 81.2 ml/kg/min, results that were corroborated
by the United States Olympic Committee (Colorado Springs, CO)."*

If you then accept that 1) he could sustain 90% of his VO2max for the
duration of, e.g., l'alpe de Huez, and 2) he had high-average cycling
efficiency, then his power when climbing would have been 475-500 W,
i.e., consistent with the quote from Coyle's book. The only real
question, then, is whether loss of 5+ kg of body mass would have
adversely affected his VO2max, and hence his ability to produce power.
That we don't know, but given that 1) he raced quite successfully in
1993 at 75 kg (calculated from quote above), and 2) he reportedly lost
some upper body mass as a result of cancer cachexia (a common
occurrence), then I think it is quite possible that he could have
dropped to the 72-74 kg he reportedly raced his Tours at w/o any
negative effects (aside from being hungry much of the time!).

*Although 6.1 L/min is 5% lower than the 6.4 L/min estimate I derived,
the fact that the OTC is at 1860 m could easily account for the
difference. The reason that Coyle (again, Edward, not Daniel) reported
a lower value likely reflects the fact that 1) Armstrong only went to
UT-Austin for testing in the off-season, and 2) the metabolic cart
there (which I built/modified) tends to underestimate VO2 slightly.

Conclusion: I have yet to see any physiological or power data on
Armstrong that could be taken as definitive proof of doping. (OTOH, the
above can't really be taken as proof that he didn't dope, either.)

Andy Coggan

Professor, you wrote in a prior post:

"No, I'm lazy, and don't really feel like digging around the web to try
to come up with reliable values for his time up such climbs, their
length and steepness, etc. Moreover, even if I did do so, we're left
with one great big unknown, which is this: how much did Armstrong
*really* weigh at the time of these exploits? I've seen estimates that
vary by as much as 10%, which obviously has a huge impact on whether
the required VO2 would be believable."

So all of your candyassing above in this post is relatively meaningless.
Nice job. Get back to us when you have the climb stats and plug them in.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

what was it you were saying about Armstrong's performance being so
"unworldly" that it could only be explained by doping?

"The great tragedy of science - the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis
by an ugly fact." -
Thomas H. Huxley

Andy Coggan

Quoted message said:

4) to get to 6.7 W/kg, he had increase his power to 500 W, and reduce
his body mass by 5.5 kg.

I'm reminded of the cartoon with the scientists standing in front of a
complex chart, with one step marked "At this point, a miracle occurs"
and for one to say "I think you need a bit more detail here."

6% increase in absolute sustained power.
7% drop in body mass.
6 months.

Forget the papers on doping, all someone needs to do is write a paper on
this training method.