Vayer again
Fred Flintstein
figured out yet?
Fred Flintstein
Brad Anders
wrote:
> Jesus Fucking Christ. I wonder if he's got his math
> figured out yet?
>
>
> Fred Flintstein
I think it's cool, because the way I read this paragraph:
"In one study of 11 world-class cyclists, the highest VO2 max was 82.5
ml/kg/min (Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, vol 34, p
2079). Levels above 85 ml/kg/min are "very rare", says Ross Tucker at
the University of Cape Town in South Africa. Olaf Schumacher at the
University of Freiburg in Germany agrees, saying that values above
this for cyclists are "definitely very high" and beyond what he feels
is "natural"."
.... it means that Greg Lemond, with a self-acknowledged VO2max > 90
ml/kg/min, is absolutely and clearly a drug cheat. He should make a
public acknowlegement.
Brad Anders
B. Lafferty
Love your logic. Carry on.
Brad Anders
> Love your logic. Carry on.
Not really my logic, though I got close to this when discussing
Rominger's hour record over 15 years ago. It's Vayer's and Lemond's
logic, now. Like I said in another posting, just disqualify the
winner. He had to have been a cheat, since we know they're all cheats
and he beat them.
Brad Anders
--D-y
"It's even more delicious when the Lemond Anti-Lance Vector might have
been the biggest cheat of all".
("Not saying he was, of course. We don't prove anything here, but
invite the readers to look at the numbers and decide for themselves")
--D-y
B. Lafferty
The core point is that prior to the advent of epo certain wattage levels
when climbing were not reached. The calculations are relatively easy to
do with known climbs when you have the climbing time and a fairly
accurate approximation of the rider's weight with bicycle.
It is what it is. As for Lemond, IIRC, his Vo2 max was measured in the
lab, pre-epo era, at 93. Armstrong was around 82 although his web site
had it creeping upward to 83 or 83.5 at one point. Take a look at
http://bikeraceinfo.com/oralhistory/lemond.html
Brad Anders
> The core point is that prior to the advent of epo certain wattage levels
> when climbing were not reached. The calculations are relatively easy to
> do with known climbs when you have the climbing time and a fairly
> accurate approximation of the rider's weight with bicycle.
Yeah, I know. I used to write a column in "Winning" about such
things.
Brad Anders
B. Lafferty
K. Fred Gauss
> pre-epo
There is disagreement over what that means. There are some who
conveniently define that to mean "before Lemond retired".
--D-y
Jeeze, Brian, you call people here fanboys. Chairman of what Bill, I
couldn't read too far.
Never forgetting, the alleged VO max is both the source of
"entitlement" *and* virtual wins.
Well, of course, entitlement is the source of the virtual wins, but...
Who knows what Lemond was on that day in the lab?
If he could show those numbers every day, given his generation-topping
"bike handling", he should have won every race he ever entered, even
with everyone conspiring against him-- unless he fell down, of course.
--D-y
B. Lafferty
There is disagreement as to when epo use became common. It has nothing
to do with when Lemond retired. There is no disagreement regarding the
average wattage output of climbers in the Tour and the fact that wattage
output increased dramatically once epo was readily available. Lemond,
while at the high end of the performance curve, was behind the curve
once epo became prevalent.
B. Lafferty
> On Jul 1, 4:59 pm, "B. Lafferty"<b...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> On 7/1/2010 5:28 PM, Brad Anders wrote:
>>
>>> On Jul 1, 2:24 pm, "B. Lafferty"<b...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> Love your logic. Carry on.
>>
>>> Not really my logic, though I got close to this when discussing
>>> Rominger's hour record over 15 years ago. It's Vayer's and Lemond's
>>> logic, now. Like I said in another posting, just disqualify the
>>> winner. He had to have been a cheat, since we know they're all cheats
>>> and he beat them.
>>
>>> Brad Anders
>>
>> The core point is that prior to the advent of epo certain wattage levels
>> when climbing were not reached. The calculations are relatively easy to
>> do with known climbs when you have the climbing time and a fairly
>> accurate approximation of the rider's weight with bicycle.
>>
>> It is what it is. As for Lemond, IIRC, his Vo2 max was measured in the
>> lab, pre-epo era, at 93. Armstrong was around 82 although his web site
>> had it creeping upward to 83 or 83.5 at one point. Take a look athttp://bikeraceinfo.com/oralhistory/lemond.html
>
> Jeeze, Brian, you call people here fanboys. Chairman of what Bill, I
> couldn't read too far.
Founder of Torelli Imports. The issue isn't really Vo2 Max. It's
wattage. You might understand that by reading a bit further.
B. Lafferty
steroid abuse that may have led to the onset of his mitochondrial
myopathy. That would have been back in the mid-1990s.
Fred Gringioni
"B. Lafferty" <b...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:8rOdncscoutRkrDR...@giganews.com...
Dumbass -
VO2 can be increased since the denominator is the athlete's weight (in
kilograms).
Anders is right about Lemond being dirty if he uses his own logic.
thanks,
Kurgan. presented by Gringioni.
B. Lafferty
Fred Gringioni
Dumbass -
I guess that, all else being equal, bigger VO2 doesn't equal more wattage
eh?
Brad Anders
Uh, Brian, read the quote I cited from the article. Independent of any
observation of extreme average power levels, the physiologist cited
said that levels over 90 ml/kg/min for VO2max were not "natural". It
therefore follows that in his estimation, a person like Lemond, with a
<measured> (not estimated, not inferred, not implied) VO2max of over
92 ml/kg/min almost certainly attained that level in an "unnatural"
manner, in the view of the physiologist. You can also include guys
like Bjorn Dahlie, who it is reported actually exceeded 100 ml/kg/min.
Seeing as how Lemond has been trumpeting that these implied methods
are as good as blood and urine tests for detecting dopers, he should
be the first to acknowledge that his own performances are suspect.
As for the power relationship to VO2max, this is far less clear. As
Marquis used to remind us regularly (and rightly, IMO), a high VO2max
is not an assurance of cycling success. Sustained power output is a
combination of oxygen uptake (related to VO2max), cycling efficiency,
lactate tolerance, and mechanical considerations. VO2max is a strong
indicator, but not the only factor. I would also suggest that any
estimate of power output in lieu of actual data from Powertap or SRM
records is suspect, as it is an estimate and does not comprehend
variations due to drafting (small, but significant at the climbing
speeds of pros) or known and accurate assessments of rolling
resistance or actual rider+bike+gear weight.
Brad Anders
B. Lafferty
If athletes in varying sports have been subject to Vo2 Max tests in the
early 1980 or before, the physiologist needs to explain how such results
are possible absent doping.
>
> As for the power relationship to VO2max, this is far less clear. As
> Marquis used to remind us regularly (and rightly, IMO), a high VO2max
> is not an assurance of cycling success. Sustained power output is a
> combination of oxygen uptake (related to VO2max), cycling efficiency,
> lactate tolerance, and mechanical considerations. VO2max is a strong
> indicator, but not the only factor. I would also suggest that any
> estimate of power output in lieu of actual data from Powertap or SRM
> records is suspect, as it is an estimate and does not comprehend
> variations due to drafting (small, but significant at the climbing
> speeds of pros) or known and accurate assessments of rolling
> resistance or actual rider+bike+gear weight.
While the climbing wattages may not be as accurate as those recorded
with Powertap or SRM, they are accurate enough to demonstrate that
something happened at the time epo use became prevalent. What do you
think a reasonable margin of error would be for those earlier wattage
estimates?
>
> Brad Anders
B. Lafferty
dumb dumb.
K. Fred Gauss
> On 7/1/2010 7:51 PM, K. Fred Gauss wrote:
>> B. Lafferty wrote:
>>
>>> pre-epo
>>
>> There is disagreement over what that means. There are some who
>> conveniently define that to mean "before Lemond retired".
>
> There is disagreement as to when epo use became common. It has nothing
> to do with when Lemond retired.
There is, to Lemond fanboys.
Step 1: Pretend like EPO wasn't available.
Step 2: Pretend like blood doping doesn't count.
Step 3: Pretend like nothing else is performance enhancing, either.
Step 4: Call anyone who disagrees names.
Fred Gringioni
Dumbass -
And since VO2 is affected by weight . . . . .
K. Fred Gauss
That part doesn't seem especially tricky.
--D-y
> On 7/1/2010 8:08 PM, --D-y wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 1, 4:59 pm, "B. Lafferty"<b...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> >> On 7/1/2010 5:28 PM, Brad Anders wrote:
>
> >>> On Jul 1, 2:24 pm, "B. Lafferty"<b...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
> >>>> Love your logic. Carry on.
>
> >>> Not really my logic, though I got close to this when discussing
> >>> Rominger's hour record over 15 years ago. It's Vayer's and Lemond's
> >>> logic, now. Like I said in another posting, just disqualify the
> >>> winner. He had to have been a cheat, since we know they're all cheats
> >>> and he beat them.
>
> >>> Brad Anders
>
> >> The core point is that prior to the advent of epo certain wattage levels
> >> when climbing were not reached. The calculations are relatively easy to
> >> do with known climbs when you have the climbing time and a fairly
> >> accurate approximation of the rider's weight with bicycle.
>
> >> It is what it is. As for Lemond, IIRC, his Vo2 max was measured in the
> >> lab, pre-epo era, at 93. Armstrong was around 82 although his web site
> >> had it creeping upward to 83 or 83.5 at one point. Take a look athttp://bikeraceinfo.com/oralhistory/lemond.html
>
> > Jeeze, Brian, you call people here fanboys. Chairman of what Bill, I
> > couldn't read too far.
>
> Founder of Torelli Imports. The issue isn't really Vo2 Max. It's
> wattage. You might understand that by reading a bit further.
Forgive me, I couldn't get passage in the WayBack Machine to return to
the halcyon days when Greg Lemond was still a hero.
--D-y
--D-y
You already reminded me once, quite recently. Forget? "Vector"?
--D-y
derf...@gmail.com
> ... when you have the climbing time and a fairly
> accurate approximation of the rider's weight with bicycle.
I precisely approximate LeMonD's weight to be: fucking-fat +/- .002
lbs.
> It is what it is. As for Lemond, IIRC, his Vo2 max was measured in the
> lab, pre-epo era, at 93. Armstrong was around 82 although his web site
> had it creeping upward to 83 or 83.5 at one point. Take a look athttp://bikeraceinfo.com/oralhistory/lemond.html
GL: ... "I was on average about 6.2 to 6.4 liters of Oxygen, which
translated to my racing weight would be 92, 93, 94 VO2 Max. I think
only cross-country skier Bjørn Dæhlie [Generally considered the
greatest Nordic skier of all time, 1992 Olympic Gold Medalist 15 km,
50 km, 4 x 10 km relay cross country skiing], had those same numbers.
So I think I had one of, if not the highest.
Now I don't know Merckx's. I don't think Merckx ever did a VO2 Max.
So, I'm certain he was up there. I think Bernard Hinault's VO2 Max was
88. I think I was of the top...."
GL: "I read in a deposition in a trial that an expert witness said
that I couldn't have had a ninety [VO2 Max]...that I would have been a
one in a thousand in the pro ranks to have that. I happened to have
been in the 1980s and was probably the best rider out of a thousand
pros. So [laughs], I was one in a thousand."
Never underestimate LeMonD's opinion of himself. Even if it means
he's making himself, by definition, into a doper.
Scott
You know, in virtually every sport that relies on strength and/or
endurance, we've seen improvements and new records across the board.
There's no reason to assume that the only factor that could lead to
increased wattages from pro cyclists must be drug use. Smart,
specific training w/ a power meter can account for some pretty big
increases, for example. Better diet, less racing (or, perhaps, more
rest) etc... all could have an effect on the top level cyclists being
stronger than in years past. Just sayin'.
Henry
>
> - Show quoted text -
so this guy is definately a cheat - 92 v02 I think
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ole_Einar_Bj%C3%B8rndalen
drmofe
wrote:
> Jesus Fucking Christ. I wonder if he's got his math
> figured out yet?
>
> http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20727673.900-superhuman-perform...
>
> Fred Flintstein
Lemond.
Carpenter.
Prefontaine.
Indurain.
Rogers.
Rominger.
Mäntyranta.
Boardman.
possibly Obree.
Fred on a stick
> As for the power relationship to VO2max, this is far less clear.
Fredmaster of Brainerd
wrote:
> On 7/2/2010 3:16 AM, Brad Anders wrote:
>
> > As for the power relationship to VO2max, this is far less clear.
>
> http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/rbr/coyle.png
Ross Tucker, quoted in the article as determining values
of VO2max from power outputs estimating from climbing
speed, blogs about various things including cycling
power and doping suspicions at http://www.sportsscientists.com/
I have a feeling that one of his previous posts was discussed
here but I haven't dug it up with Google.
I remember criticizing him for something, I think it was this:
http://www.sportsscientists.com/2009/07/tour-2009-contador-climb.html
where he exaggerates the difference between Contador
and other cyclists by starting a bar chart of ascent rate
at 1700 m/hour instead of zero (I commented under "Ben").
His fans say it's okay because it's not a peer-reviewed
article. So keep that in mind, if you find anything wrong
in their analysis, it's okay because it wasn't peer-reviewed.
Fredreviewer Ben
Fred Flintstein
Are we assuming that Vayer's math is correct?
Fred Flintstein
Steve Freides
> Jesus Fucking Christ. I wonder if he's got his math
> figured out yet?
>
>
> Fred Flintstein
They used to think no one could run a four-minute mile.
-S-
B. Lafferty
B. Lafferty
Just put a pebble in your mouth.
Fred Flintstein
You started the thread, I was sure you'd remember it.
But unlike you I'm occasionally wrong.
Fred Flintstein
B. Lafferty
not assuming Vayer's math is correct because it has been checked and
found to be correct. If *you* think the "math" is suspect, then examine
it and give us your considered opinion.
BTW, I don't see any posts from me on the thread you link to a Google
groups. Which thread are you saying I started?
Fredmaster of Brainerd
> On 7/2/2010 11:06 AM, Fred Flintstein wrote:> On 7/2/2010 9:46 AM, B. Lafferty wrote:
> >> On 7/2/2010 9:28 AM, Fred Flintstein wrote:
>
> >>> Are we assuming that Vayer's math is correct?
>
> >>> Fred Flintstein
> >> No. By all means do check it.
>
>
> > You started the thread, I was sure you'd remember it.
> > But unlike you I'm occasionally wrong.
>
> > Fred Flintstein
>
> There are quotes from Vayer that were published in LA Confidential. I'm
> not assuming Vayer's math is correct because it has been checked and
> found to be correct. If *you* think the "math" is suspect, then examine
> it and give us your considered opinion.
>
> BTW, I don't see any posts from me on the thread you link to a Google
> groups. Which thread are you saying I started?
You're "Reggie." I sympathize. On rbr, sometimes
it's hard to tell the players without a scorecard.
Please give a reference to where Vayer's math has
been checked and found to be correct.
If you look at the plot Chung posted a link to
http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/rbr/coyle.png
and try to understand it, you'll see that VO2max
is not closely correlated with power (but VO2 at LT is)
and so these attempts to use power to estimate
VO2max, or vice versa, are pointless.
Fredmaster Ben
Fred on a stick
If you follow that sportscientists.com link you gave earlier and follow
it around a bit you can see that Vayer does the same things in this most
recent iteration of his annual "la puissance: est-elle humainement
possible?" article as he did in those articles we talked about in 2005.
B. Lafferty
B. Lafferty
Of course. So do you have a problem with Vayer's "math?" If so, what
is the problem in your view.
Fred on a stick
Reggie,
He writes the same article every year, with the same errors. It
shouldn't surprise that if he's publishing the same article with the
same errors then my criticisms are the same.
B. Lafferty
Please do tell us exactly what the errors are so that we can alert WADA.
K. Fred Gauss
WADA is going after people for publishing nonsensical tripe now? Good
decision! They weren't doing a very good job at stopping the dopers,
they need to try a different line of work.
B. Lafferty
Nice rant. Now please answer my question. What errors are their in
Vayer's "math" that we should bring to WADA's attention?
K. Fred Gauss
> Nice rant. Now please answer my question. What errors are their in
> Vayer's "math" that we should bring to WADA's attention?
Objections were raised in the 2005 thread that you haven't responded to.
Vayer's math hasn't changed, neither have the objections.
B. Lafferty
Then it should be easy for you to tell us exactly what is wrong with
Vayer's "math." So tell us.
Fredmaster of Brainerd
> On 7/2/2010 12:37 PM, Fredmaster of Brainerd wrote:
>
> >> BTW, I don't see any posts from me on the thread you link to a Google
> >> groups. Which thread are you saying I started?
>
> > You're "Reggie." I sympathize. On rbr, sometimes
> > it's hard to tell the players without a scorecard.
>
ROTFL!
Ben
p.s. Could you list the personalities you _have_
posted under?
B. Lafferty
No.
K. Fred Gauss
I'm not the one hung up on his math or 5 year old threads. Since you
are, I'll help you along:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/browse_frm/thread/e667e2a5c3255cd1/03263931f9c08ad0
B. Lafferty
question about Vayer's "math." What is it about Vayer's "math" that the
Freds believe is a problem, Fred. Try to outline the problem in 50
words or less. Give it a try.
Fredmaster of Brainerd
> On 7/2/2010 6:03 PM, K. Fred Gauss wrote:
>
>
>
> > B. Lafferty wrote:
> >> On 7/2/2010 3:48 PM, K. Fred Gauss wrote:
> >>> B. Lafferty wrote:
>
> >>>> Nice rant. Now please answer my question. What errors are their in
> >>>> Vayer's "math" that we should bring to WADA's attention?
>
> >>> Objections were raised in the 2005 thread that you haven't responded to.
> >>> Vayer's math hasn't changed, neither have the objections.
>
> >> Then it should be easy for you to tell us exactly what is wrong with
> >> Vayer's "math." So tell us.
>
> > I'm not the one hung up on his math or 5 year old threads. Since you
> > are, I'll help you along:
>
> Pitiful dissembling on your part, Fred. I'm not the one who raised a
> question about Vayer's "math." What is it about Vayer's "math" that the
> Freds believe is a problem, Fred. Try to outline the problem in 50
> words or less. Give it a try.
Oh for fuck's sake.
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/msg/9c41457192465d86
for starters.
Ben
B. Lafferty
tell us exactly and concisely what the problem is with Vayer's "math."
Tell us, Fred. In your own brilliant words.
Fredmaster of Brainerd
Look here, meat,
It's already spelled out for you. Vayer is so
busy making analogies for what power output means
that he stumbles over his own feet.
Let's accept that LANCE had a power output of
457 W and weighed 71 kg, plus about 9 kg for
bike, helmet, etc. Some power is lost to rolling
and air resistance, say 50 W. LANCE's vertical
ascent speed is then 407 W/80 kg/9.8 m/s^2 = 0.52 m/s.
If LANCE climbed at a cadence of 90 rpm and
used 170mm cranks then his crank velocity is
2*pi*0.17*(90/60) = 1.6 m/s. Power = force * velocity
so his force at the cranks averaged over a cycle
is 457/1.6 = 286 N. Let's say that he applies force
over 30% of the cycle with each leg, then each
leg is pushing with force 286/(2*0.3) N = 477 N
during its 30% on, and during the rest of the cycle
it bears no weight. 477 N is a weight of about 49 kg,
so LANCE is standing on the pedals with about
49 kg-force per leg.
Something like this is how Vayer came up with his
analogy about having 45 kg weights tied to LANCE's
legs, only I think Vayer assumed a different cadence
and doesn't understand the ~30% duty cycle. But
it's a _stupid analogy_ because pedaling doesn't
feel anything like having 45 kg weights tied to your
legs (or 20 kg for us mortals). Pushing pedals is easier
than deadlifting weights, and during the off part
of the pedal cycle, your leg _rests_. Try walking
with 20 kg weights on your legs - it's gotta be somewhere
between painful and damn near impossible.
Then Vayer says that LANCE's power is equivalent
to climbing 1 meter/second with 45 kg weights
attached. Well that makes no fucking sense, as
Chung pointed out. As I showed above, LANCE only
climbs at 0.5 m/sec even without weights attached.
Power = mgh/t, to climb at 1.0 m/sec, with weights, he'd
have to do P = (80 + 45 + 45)*9.8*1.0 = 1578 watts. No
wonder this feat sounds superhuman and unnatural. It is.
Vayer fucked up - either he dropped two factors of 2,
or he has some weird way of computing climbing
in which only the speed of deadlifting the weights
counts and he hasn't accounted for actually moving
the whole mess uphill, although I still can't get the
numbers to come out his way.
In other words, it does not make sense. It is not
physics, it is gibberish with artificial physics flavor.
Is there any other basic physics I can help you
squishy little carbon-based lifeforms with?
Fredroid Ben
B. Lafferty
Thanks, Fred. Let's focus on the calculation of average wattage for
various climbs and not attempted analogies which i couldn't care less
about.
The wattage calculation for climbing is straight forward (I think your
assumption that air resistance is worth 50 watts is suspect unless you
can demonstrate that). Do you have something to address with regard to
that; the pre-1990 average climbing wattages calculated and those after
1990 when epo became prevalent?
Michael Press
<6bd9cd90-894a-4017...@z8g2000yqz.googlegroups.com>,
Fredmaster of Brainerd <bjwe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In other words, it does not make sense. It is not
> physics, it is gibberish with artificial physics flavor.
But it's really good gibberish. Mmmmmm.
--
Michael Press
Fredmaster of Brainerd
I think your thinking about my assumptions is worthless
unless you can demonstrate that you can make a
calculation about this subject and aren't numerically illiterate.
Also, it should be obvious that 50 watts of air resistance
is 11% of the total and doesn't explain Vayer's factor of
2 to 4 errors.
http://www.analyticcycling.com/ForcesPower_Page.html
use the default parameters but put in 80 kg for rider+bike weight,
0.08 for slope grade, 6.3 m/sec for speed. You'll get about
6.1 kg*m/s^2 for wind resistance force, 3.1 for rolling
resistance, and 62.8 for slope force. Power = force*velocity,
so the power consumed is 38 W for wind, 20 W for rolling,
and 396 W for slope force, total 454 W. So 50 W was a
slight underestimate.
Maybe Vayer managed to estimate the climbing wattages
correctly, I don't care. It's a simple calculation, but he's
repeatedly demonstrated that he does not understand
what he is doing, so everything he says has a question
mark attached. The main problem is that all the underlying
assumptions are unsupported - in a sport where winning
margins are typically less than 1-2%, using performance
as a direct indicator (rather than just a hint) of doping
is doomed.
Fredcalculator Ben
Fred on a stick
>
> I think your thinking about my assumptions is worthless
> unless you can demonstrate that you can make a
> calculation about this subject and aren't numerically illiterate.
Agreed. He confuses watts and joules, screws up conversions, etc. He
also "standardizes" his power estimates to a standard body mass (I don't
recall the exact body mass but I think it was something like 70 or 75
kg) then, when talking about a particular actual rider doesn't
"un-standardize." The most egregious example from that 2005 thread was
when he was talking about Pantani, who was maybe 62kg sopping wet. He
calculated the "standardized" power for Pantani's Alpe d'Huez climb
based on his "standard" rider than divided by Pantani's actual 62kg to
get 7+ watts/kg.
But, even ignoring all the above (which we shouldn't), he still has the
problem of getting from a wattage estimate to a VO2Max estimate.
Betty
>> In other words, it does not make sense. It is not
>> physics, it is gibberish with artificial physics flavor.
Michael Press wrote:
> But it's really good gibberish. Mmmmmm.
French cuisine.
K. Fred Gauss
Brad Anders
> On Jul 1, 8:54 am, Fred Flintstein <bob.schwa...@sbcREMOVEglobal.net>
> wrote:
>
> > Jesus Fucking Christ. I wonder if he's got his math
> > figured out yet?
>
> >http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20727673.900-superhuman-perform...
>
> > Fred Flintstein
>
> I think it's cool, because the way I read this paragraph:
>
> "In one study of 11 world-class cyclists, the highest VO2 max was 82.5
> ml/kg/min (Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, vol 34, p
> 2079). Levels above 85 ml/kg/min are "very rare", says Ross Tucker at
> the University of Cape Town in South Africa. Olaf Schumacher at the
> University of Freiburg in Germany agrees, saying that values above
> this for cyclists are "definitely very high" and beyond what he feels
> is "natural"."
>
> .... it means that Greg Lemond, with a self-acknowledged VO2max > 90
> ml/kg/min, is absolutely and clearly a drug cheat. He should make a
> public acknowlegement.
As Lemond is a supporter of the use of performance-based evidence to
identify drug cheats, my comment regarding him as drug cheat is
sarcastically pointing out that his own numbers would label him a drug
cheat by these standards. I personally do not believe Lemond was a
drug cheat.
Brad Anders
DA74
> ...in a sport where winning
> margins are typically less than 1-2%, using performance
> as a direct indicator (rather than just a hint) of doping
> is doomed.
>
> Fredcalculator Ben
This is a correct analysis.
DA74
Steve Freides
> On 7/2/2010 10:01 AM, Steve Freides wrote:
>> Fred Flintstein wrote:
>>> Jesus Fucking Christ. I wonder if he's got his math
>>> figured out yet?
>>>
>>>
>>> Fred Flintstein
>>
>> They used to think no one could run a four-minute mile.
>>
>> -S-
>>
>>
> They used to think you shouldn't drink on long rides in hot weather.
> Just put a pebble in your mouth.
They used to think the Earth was flat.
-S-
Betty
> They used to think the Earth was flat.
It isn't ?
Sarah 'vote for a flat earth in 2012' Palin
Steve Freides
The sad thing is that it's not really round, either. The truth is so
often messy business, isn't it, now?
-S-
Fred Gringioni
"Betty" <no...@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:mi06g7-...@donaldm.homeip.net...
Dumbass -
I actually saw something Palin said that made sense.
She wanted to stop active enforcement of possession of marijuana. Said it
was a waste of limited government resources.
I couldn't believe it. I'll bet she may get stoned occasionally.
thanks,
Kurgan. presented by Gringioni.
Steve Freides
Occasionally isn't enough to explain what she says - must be something
she does a lot.
-S-