[kuestentanne]

Was ein Geschreibsel ...

Zu Herrn Coyle hätte ich noch was ...

As part of their complaint, the Australians asked to review all of the data collected by Coyle and were given data from the start of the study in January 1993. It was that data that led to this week’s exchange.

The Australians found that Coyle used an incorrect formula when he worked out Armstrong’s net, or delta, efficiency. Because of that, they write in their letter, “there exists no credible evidence to support Coyle’s conclusion that Armstrong’s muscle efficiency improved.”

In his letter, several e-mails and an interview, Coyle acknowledged his mistake. But he said that it did not change his overall findings about Armstrong’s gross muscle efficiency improvements. He called the calculation error “a minor variation” that “doesn’t make a practical difference.”

[...]

Put simply, Coyle’s paper makes the case that more efficient muscles and a lighter body on the bicycle made Armstrong unbeatable. Efficiency is the relationship between how much energy an athlete expends and how much work he or she can do. In cycling, that can translate into a measure of how hard a rider works and how fast he or she goes.

Ashenden, however, said his group’s work had reduced that claim to a myth. Their letter, he said, refutes the efficiency part of the equation while inconsistencies in Armstrong’s reported weight change undermine the other half of the equation.

“There’s nothing left,” he said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/11/sp...gewanted=print

http://www.sportsscientists.com/2008...ch-errors.html

http://www.sportsscientists.com/2008...allment-2.html

http://www.sportsscientists.com/2008...continued.html