That's exactly the point....they didn'tThey were published in about 2005, IIRC, and within a few weeks were being questioned by competent researchers in the field WRT plausibility......just like The Scientific Method is designed to work. No one wanted to listen back then.....especially Coyle.I wasn't clear. I didn't mean to imply that Coyle's study had scientific merit. As you said, the data was VERY poor and the study was quickly discredited, though not until the media had a field day and planted the seed in everyone's mind that Armstrong was a unique physiological specimen. I meant to say that the original claim I made about oxygen-vector drugs turning mules into racehorses. That has scientific merit, but the possibility of ever having a fully developed study on professional athletes is slim to none. I don't want to imply that Armstrong was a mule but he certainly was never a rider considered to contend for the Tour de France.
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |
BATS data provided in real-time. NYSE, NASDAQ and NYSEMKT data delayed 15 minutes.
Real-Time prices provided by BATS. M