Vayer Was Right--Paging Coyle, Och, Coggan et al.

Mineral Water

unread,

Oct 11, 2012, 11:28:17 AM10/11/12

to

Despite all the trashing of his resume here on rbr. I'd like to get Andy Coggan's comments now that the dossier is public. I know he'll likely say he never reaslly expressed an opinion one way or the other, but he did trash Vayer as I recall.

And what sayeth Dr. Coyle, the purveyor of efficiency gained by years of training. Oops! There's a who industry of training experts who have ridden Armstrong's lie to profit. Any comment from Chris Charmichael. Och? What a bunch of fucking liars

aco...@earthlink.net

unread,

Oct 12, 2012, 11:05:54 AM10/12/12

to

On Thursday, October 11, 2012 10:28:17 AM UTC-5, Mineral Water wrote:
> Despite all the trashing of his resume here on rbr. I'd like to get Andy Coggan's comments now that the dossier is public. I know he'll likely say he never reaslly expressed an opinion one way or the other, but he did trash Vayer as I recall.

You're right, I never expressed an opinion re. Armstrong's guilt or innocence.

As for Vayer, I'd stand by everything I said, i.e., you can't estimate power from VAM with sufficient accuracy to draw any valid conclusions, making the notion of using such estimates to identify who is or isn't doping farcical.

> And what sayeth Dr. Coyle, the purveyor of efficiency gained by years of training. Oops!

No oops there: the scientific studies published since support Coyle's hypothesis that efficiency improves with endurance exercise training.

Andy Coggan

aco...@earthlink.net

unread,

Oct 12, 2012, 11:41:26 AM10/12/12

to

On Thursday, October 11, 2012 10:28:17 AM UTC-5, Mineral Water wrote:

> he did trash Vayer as I recall.

BTW, I trawled through the archives of rec.bicycles.racing, but could not find any post in which I "trashed" Vayer.

Andy Coggan

Mineral Water

unread,

Oct 12, 2012, 2:34:18 PM10/12/12

to

ROTFL! Efficiency at the level Coyle claimed for Armstrong? I think not. Coyle and quite a few of your buddies were very effecticely used by the Armstrong lie machine. Now head for the bathroom and clean youself up, putz.

aco...@earthlink.net

unread,

Oct 12, 2012, 2:43:39 PM10/12/12

to

On Friday, October 12, 2012 1:34:18 PM UTC-5, Mineral Water wrote:

> ROTFL! Efficiency at the level Coyle claimed for Armstrong? I think not.

??

Armstrong wasn't particularly efficient, even the last time Coyle tested him.

> Coyle and quite a few of your buddies were very effecticely used by the Armstrong lie machine.

Nah, seemingly just Coyle (well, maybe Dan Heil too).

> Now head for the bathroom and clean youself up, putz.

Given the number of erroneous claims you've made in just two posts, I think you're the one who needs to clean themselves up...putz.

Andy Coggan

Mineral Water

unread,

Oct 13, 2012, 5:03:21 PM10/13/12

to

Keep dissembling. It's very amusing. BTW, Coyle looks like an even bigger asshole now that the truth is out. And Vayer was right about much that was going on. I recall discussions here about the differences in average wattage outputs climbing pre and post 1990 and EPO. He, Walsh and others, like Lemond were spot on. Remeber when Lim "lost" data transmission while Landis was climbing. I don't recall you or any of the other training gurus finding that rather odd.Someone with your marvelous knowledge base should have clearly seen the handwriting on the wall. Maybe you did, but were just afraid to speak out and feel the Uniballers wrath as people like Prentis Steffen did. But, you never suspected did you? If you did, you didn't say much, if anything. You're such a dissembling putz.

Do you know if Armstrong ever donated money to Coyle's institution or to him directly for research?

aco...@earthlink.net

unread,

Oct 13, 2012, 6:26:47 PM10/13/12

to

What's amusing is seeing you make even more of a fool out of yourself. See, what you don't understand is that I'm not a "training guru" ala, e.g., Lim, and pay very little attention to professional road cycling, especially the men's side. To wit: I've never had capable television, do not subscribe to any cycling magazines, haven't read any books about cycling in >30 y (except Obree's book, which was fascinating), and most importantly of all, don't really care who did or didn't dope *except* in the context of fair sport (IOW, the specific individuals matter not to me, I just wished it didn't exist at all). I also don't make my living via cycling, and what little income I have that is cycling-related is primarily derived from the grassroots level, i.e., amateurs such as myself. So, no, I wasn't afraid to "speak out", as there is nothing Armstrong or anyone else could have done to me - I just didn't have an opinion that I considered worth sharing (you know what they say about opinions and everyone having one).

> Do you know if Armstrong ever donated money to Coyle's institution or to him directly for research?

No idea. If he did, though, it would have to have been subsequent to the JAP paper, or else Ed would have acknowledged the support.

Andy Coggan

aco...@earthlink.net

unread,

Oct 13, 2012, 6:57:05 PM10/13/12

to

On Saturday, October 13, 2012 5:26:48 PM UTC-5, aco...@earthlink.net wrote:>

>I've never had capable television

Y'all know what I meant!

Andy Coggan

A. Dumas

unread,

Oct 14, 2012, 6:22:47 AM10/14/12

to

aco...@earthlink.net wrote:
>> I've never had capable television
>
> Y'all know what I meant!

You are near-sighted?