28 Nov '13, 5pm

@Cyclr @level_out of course! link for pt 2 at the bottom. Coyle was widely discredited for his flawed methods.

@Cyclr @level_out of course! link for pt 2 at the bottom. Coyle was widely discredited for his flawed methods.

Timing of testing sessions – Coyle very clearly concluded that his measurements of muscular efficiency were of paramount significance to Armstrong’s Tour victories. He denies this, but the title and his conclusions make very clear that his view is that Armstrong’s success is a function of this improved efficiency. Coyle would go on to testify in court that Armstrong’s rise could have been achieved without doping, so it’s quite clear that his finding was intended for support of Armstrong’s Tour performance. Yet remarkably, NOT A SINGLE testing session co-incided with the Tour. All the testing happened out of season, and only the 1999 test even overlapped with the Armstrong Tour victories. Issues around equipment – calibration, reliability, validity etc., which we won’t get into here, other than to say that over a period of seven years, the control of equipment is obviously ...

Full article: http://www.sportsscientists.com/2008/09/coyle-and-armstro...

Tweets