Log in:  

Register

Most memorable doped perfomances?

The Clinic is the only place on Cyclingnews where you can discuss doping-related issues. Ask questions, discuss positives or improvements to procedures.

Moderators: Irondan, Eshnar, Red Rick, Pricey_sky, Tonton, King Boonen, Valv.Piti

Re:

26 May 2018 13:33

Jagartrott wrote:I further refer you to any statistical handbook. Not worth discussing this anymore if you don't know how statistics work. There is no trend break in the series depicted above (apart from the drop in time gain rate around 35 km), hence 'fading' cannot be made concrete.


I genuinely don’t know when people are trolling or not anymore.

You’re arguing Froome didn’t fade, except for the last part where he relatively speaking, faded? But you can’t measure this from the maximum time gap? This is an n=1, the data set is relative time difference between two people, statistics doesn’t even play in to it, as there are none! By that logic you can’t really say Pinot is fading today, because if you start at the beginning of the tour, he’s still performing well above the mean of the peloton, and it would be disingenuous to measure from his peak relative to the rest? Insanity.

I think you have heard about p-hacking in science, where researchers ends the study once there is a statistical significant result instead of ending it at the predetermined time at which a probability value would actually be the result of a real effect.
«Sky helped for the GC, so did BMC - a lot of teams tried but one rider isn't enough. Not against De Gendt. He's like 10 riders.»
Oude Geuze
Junior Member
 
Posts: 160
Joined: 03 Apr 2016 21:16

26 May 2018 14:17

WTF are you talking about. This is statistics 101.
Your examples are ridiculous. n = 1?? This is a simple time series. Check the graph on climate I posted earlier. That's the best comparison on cherry picking start and stop times to prove a point.
User avatar Jagartrott
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,412
Joined: 15 Apr 2014 13:37

26 May 2018 15:02

It is indeed a simple time series, which reached a peak and then declined. Which means he faded.

Froome gained 213 seconds in the 70km from 80 to go until 10 to go. If he had continued at that rate he would have won by c 244 seconds. That did not happen: he won by "only" 180 seconds. That means he faded: he did not continue to perform at the same level compared to those who were in competition with him.

If you don't agree with that, please tell me what you mean by the word "faded", and why you think Franckschleck's comment was factually correct.
User avatar Armchair cyclist
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3,759
Joined: 22 Mar 2010 17:28
Location: East of England, West of Ireland

26 May 2018 16:58

For the sake of it, I'll continue.
There is uncertainty about each point in the time series. Therefore, you cannot pick one arbitrary point to start an analysis. In my climate analogy, deniers often use (used, since a few years even that doesn't work any more) the 'warming stopped in 1998' argument. Now, 1998 happens to be an extreme El Nino year, which pushes temperatures up. By using that starting point, they disregard the wider trend. Like in the Froome time series, there is stochasticity here, so you have to take that into account. Froome, at the 10 km mark, may have been holding back a bit, may have been eating, or the other group may have started riding faster, for example Reichenbach giving it one last push, or the GPS signal flickered. This is not enough to constitute fading (which I'm assuming means time losses instead of gains) in itself, it has to be compared to the points before and after. What do we so in the graph: some wobbles in the last 10 k, but no trend break - because that would constitute time losses that exceed the margin of uncertainty, for which there's no clear visual indication of that here. This, by the way, is more or less confirmed by Froome himself, who said that he never exceeded his limits and looked remarkably fresh after he finished.

To end, I'll show the '98 warming stopped (cf. Froome started losing time at 10 km to go) argument in perspective. You can see on Froome's graph that there seemed to be a sudden gain in time between 12 and 10 km - which exacerbated the peak (and is indicative of stochasticity):
Image
User avatar Jagartrott
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,412
Joined: 15 Apr 2014 13:37

26 May 2018 18:52

So Froome didn't fade at all, he continued stretching his advantage over the pursuers all the way to the end. If you want to believe that, go ahead and enjoy your intellectual fantasy and creating your own definition of what fading means. Just keep ignoring the teleological nature of a finish line in a race and the simple facts of the race times.

In the meantime, I note that Franckschleck has made no attempt to align himself with your attempts to defend his erroneous comment.
User avatar Armchair cyclist
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3,759
Joined: 22 Mar 2010 17:28
Location: East of England, West of Ireland

26 May 2018 19:13

I do enjoy intellectual fantasies, yes.
If only we had Froome's data eh, we would be able to tell for sure whether he was fading or not. In his own words, he was not and rode controlled throughout, and I might add today supports that impression. The 'simple fact' of the time series does not support a significant drop in performance vis-à-vis Dumoulin. I don't really care about Fränk, I was trying to point out that you cannot cherry pick and then lecture someone else about getting facts straight and talking about confirmation bias. It's just not correct.
User avatar Jagartrott
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,412
Joined: 15 Apr 2014 13:37

26 May 2018 19:32

Changing from gaining 30 seconds every 10km to losing 30 seconds in 10km, when the goal is to maximise time advantage at a particular end point, is not fading: definitely not correct.
User avatar Armchair cyclist
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3,759
Joined: 22 Mar 2010 17:28
Location: East of England, West of Ireland

Re: Most memorable doped perfomances?

26 May 2018 20:16

Would it be too far outside the box to nominate for "Most Memorable Doped Performance" the segment of Chris Froome's career extending from the 2011 Vuelta to the current Giro? -- Memorable, as in, unable to be forgotten or otherwise gotten out of mind, like a really bad recurring nightmare.
User avatar JosephK
Junior Member
 
Posts: 141
Joined: 24 Jul 2016 15:49

Re:

26 May 2018 21:19

Armchair cyclist wrote:Changing from gaining 30 seconds every 10km to losing 30 seconds in 10km, when the goal is to maximise time advantage at a particular end point, is not fading: definitely not correct.

Ah, back to square one I see.
Enjoy the rest of the discussion. I'm done.
User avatar Jagartrott
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,412
Joined: 15 Apr 2014 13:37

Re: Most memorable doped perfomances?

27 May 2018 14:07

Whatever you want to take from the graph, it certainly doesn’t show if Froome faded or not. It shows a change in the rate of time gained, but there is nothing in the graph that points to the reason for the change.
User avatar freddybobs
New Member
 
Posts: 27
Joined: 28 Oct 2012 13:00

Re:

27 May 2018 22:32

ontheroad wrote:In a strange sort of what you sort of have to admire Froome for having the cojones to produce a performance like this while under investigation.

This. Lol.
User avatar Escarabajo
Veteran
 
Posts: 8,790
Joined: 16 Apr 2009 18:38
Location: USA - Central Time

Re: Most memorable doped perfomances?

28 May 2018 00:19

freddybobs wrote:Whatever you want to take from the graph, it certainly doesn’t show if Froome faded or not. It shows a change in the rate of time gained, but there is nothing in the graph that points to the reason for the change.


Yes, is it not perfectly plausible that his opponents increased their tempo, whilst Froome's remained constant?
User avatar The Hegelian
Member
 
Posts: 767
Joined: 06 Jul 2014 09:18

Re: Most memorable doped perfomances?

28 May 2018 03:43

The Hegelian wrote:
freddybobs wrote:Whatever you want to take from the graph, it certainly doesn’t show if Froome faded or not. It shows a change in the rate of time gained, but there is nothing in the graph that points to the reason for the change.


Yes, is it not perfectly plausible that his opponents increased their tempo, whilst Froome's remained constant?


Correct. This is the argument jagartrott should have made. This data is intrinsically unable to prove or disprove the hypothesis that Froome faded. It's also perfectly plausible that Froome increased his tempo while the others increased theirs by even more. Impossible to say with this data.

As for the argument that jagartrott chose to make instead, put me in the baffled camp. The presence of a definite end point - the finish of the race and the accumulation of fatigue through each of those prior data points - has an impact. Furthermore, an anologous argument to the climate change argument he/you cited would actually be an argument that Chris Froome did not show superiority over his rivals that day because, look, starting at this arbitrary starting point and ending here, he actually lost time. The argument being floated instead was that, in looking at the data set in totality, there is a clear trend upward that then somewhat reverses in the last 10km. Maybe it would help us all understand your more uh sophisticated position if you could show a graph of what a fade would look like.
VayaVayaVaya
Junior Member
 
Posts: 177
Joined: 01 Jun 2015 13:45

28 May 2018 19:59

I was just reading through this thread for some fun reading about Froome's performance, but as I read back a bit, I suddenly thought: did anybody mention mr. 63% Jimmy Briceño yet?

Showing up for a test with a hematocrit of 63% has to be a memorable doped performance in and of itself. Riis doesn't have **** on him.
User avatar Maaaaaaaarten
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3,557
Joined: 23 Oct 2011 17:47

28 May 2018 20:21

i always liked his CQ picture:

Image

looks like he's dropping the mic
User avatar zlev11
Member
 
Posts: 589
Joined: 23 Jan 2011 17:49

Previous

Return to The Clinic

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 23 guests

Back to top