biker jk wrote:Thanks Alex but I already know you're in the Coggan camp of no suspicious performance limits and having never spotted a doper ever.
Unlike some, I make a distinction between what represents sound science and speculation/opinion. W/kg estimates in and of themselves are inadequate as a dopeometer,
even if they are accurate.
biker jk wrote:Did Coggan or yourself ever call out Armstrong as a doper based on his performances (or anything else for that matter)?
I can't speak for Coggan, you'll have to ask him. IIRC correctly, he had voiced his doubts quite a long while back (as had Ed Coyle despite what's often misrepresented), but that'd be different to the questions of physiology and misuse of performance data as a dopeometer.
That doesn't mean I don't also have opinions.
Given the historical record of doping in the pro peloton over the past 30 years, any claim of doping against ANY pro bike rider on a podium in major Euro races had a better than 50% chance of being right
through chance alone.
Even Paul the Octopus could do pretty well at that game.
So I hardly think a claim about when one "picks a doper" has much meaning. And to be frank, I have no idea when I formed my opinion about Armstrong being a doper, I didn't make a diary note on the day I had such an epiphany. My apologies.
biker jk wrote:You do know that Froome's just released power data differed little from these "crummy" power estimates?
So you have the data to validate that. Great, do share.