Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

Page 89 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Jun 15, 2009
835
0
0
Franklin said:
This is incredibly sad. I don't think anyone of you has any experience in statistics. The odds of a coin landing heads 100 times is infinitely small and thus is most likely not fair.

This is an odds game. If a coin toss is so biased... the coin is most likely not fair. Thus the next toss will be heads.

To put this one into perspective: if we do a weighted sample of 101 the 100 tosses are enough to give a near 100% margin.

I laugh at everyone who simply can't grasp the theory behind it. Yes, it is possible that this coin is fair. But anyone who knows anything about probability realizes that the chance that this coin is indeed fair is infinitely small.

If this is what the supporters of Froome argue I can only shake my head.

If you know anything of probability, tossing a coin 100 times and getting 100 times head is a rather stark indicator of an unfair coin.

Way over your head, the coin is more tham likely not fair. The sample of 100 tosses is incredibly big.
I absolutely so know my statistics. But try to get your head round the concept that it is not physically possible to flip any coin, with a "heavy" (eg. polonium) side, and a "light" (eg. Lithium) side, have free rotation around its axis, and yet get a biased result.

100 straight heads, and I'll look for the star over Bethlehem and three wise men, but statistically as well as physically we're talking never-neverland here.
 
Jun 15, 2009
835
0
0
Franklin said:
:rolleyes:



Then why would you hold on to your wallet? ;)
Because he's flipping the coin so many times so as to distract me from his helper who's ever so nimble-fingered and apt to run away with my wallet? In all likelyhood that's the strategy. I've met some street-hustlers, and they don't have time for silly games.
 
May 26, 2009
3,687
1
0
hektoren said:
I absolutely so know my statistics. But try to get your head round the concept that it is not physically possible to flip any coin, with a "heavy" (eg. polonium) side, and a "light" (eg. Lithium) side, have free rotation around its axis, and yet get a biased result.

100 straight heads, and I'll look for the star over Bethlehem and three wise men, but statistically as well as physically we're talking never-neverland here.
Perhaps your coin has two heads? ;)

But let's go after your physics:

If a coin is tossed with same force over the same distance, at the same angle, with the same airflow, the amount of rotations will be the same. If the toss is not with the same force and distance the eperiment itself is off. The result will never be pure.
 
Franklin said:
If so I am utterly shocked you fail to understand the difference between odds and probability. If the coin is pure, the odds will be 50%. This is what von Mises tried to infer.

But a spread of 50% which gives a 100% score in 100% of the tries... well, that's either once in a googolplex or something is wrong with the test.
I'm sorry but you again are wrong. Odds refer to a finite situation, but the coin toss isn't, I do understand the difference. Also you seem to think that the probability must equal the physical outcome, this is wrong. I can have a fair coin and toss it 1000 times and get heads every time. Doesn't mean it isn't fair. The probability of it ever happening is tiny but it can still happen.

And where have odds come into this? We are discussing probability.

As to the second part of your post, if I toss a fair coin once I'm guaranteed a "100%" score in 100% of the tries. Is that once in a googolplex? Or maybe you should define your own terms rather than inferring others?

No. Nonsense.

Von Mises forgot to set the conditions. He had a coin and he tossed it 100 times and got heads. There is no further info. I simply dare you to point out the extra info you conjure out of thin air.
Right back at you.

Ok, so here we have an experiment with two outcomes. He does it 100 times and always get result A. We enter attempt 101. Now we can either think this is indeed once in a googolplex... or we can deduce that the test is rigged.
No, you can't, again, this is about the maths NOT TOSSING AN ACTUAL COIN.

[/QUOTE]
No. Nonsense. I do not have to point out stuff he did not say! Instead, point out the conditions you infer to or admit that indeed no conditions were given.
Again, the discussion is about the maths, not an actual coin toss. The maths dictate there is a 50/50 chance of heads or tails on the next toss.


Either you are taking the p. out of me or you are lieing about your experience. 100 out of 101 is a big sample indeed.
Nope, I have a bachelors degree, a masters degree and a Ph.D. 100 coin tosses is a tiny sample size, particularly when it is so easily repeatable.

The amusing part is that you know that I motivated why the obvious answer is "heads". And yes, that's based on empirical evidence of a 50% test done a 100 times. But somehow you make a leap and turn my answer of the obvious probability as if I claim it is proof. Of course this is quite disingenuous, but lucky for me everyone can check I never said this was proof. Sorry King Boonen... a strawman is a strawman and yours has been torched right where you put it.
You claim the answer is heads, and in a discussion about probability you didn't even place a probability on it, therefore one can only assume you think it is a fact the next coin toss will result in a head. Is this correct? Are you failing to define terms again? Again, you don't have to say a word to mean it. you didn't say it's likely to be heads or it's almost certainly going to be heads. You said it will be heads, a statement of fact. The only logical conclusion is you you believe the first 100 tosses proved that the next toss would be the same.

I do find it bad form to erect a strawman and not retract iot, but that's my sense of manners. I guess some people find it fair to put words in people's mouth.
You mean like saying the coin isn't fair?

And about your books. If you are as good as you say you are this discussion is over.. and we both know why.
Because you don't seem to grasp the difference between theoretical probability and experiment results.
 
Jun 15, 2009
835
0
0
Franklin said:
Perhaps your coin has two heads? ;)

But let's go after your physics:

If a coin is tossed with same force over the same distance, at the same angle, with the same airflow, the amount of rotations will be the same. If the toss is not with the same force and distance the eperiment itself is off. The result will never be pure.
If a coin is flipped with a machine, exacting the exact same force, angle of attack etc. in every flip, in a controlled environment, well, then you're not talking about a simple hustler flipping a coin anylonger, are you?
Stop taking a ****. Be a grown-up for once and admit it. You're wrong.
 
May 26, 2009
3,687
1
0
hektoren said:
If a coin is flipped with a machine, exacting the exact same force, angle of attack etc. in every flip, in a controlled environment, well, then you're not talking about a simple hustler flipping a coin anylonger, are you?
Stop taking a ****. Be a grown-up for once and admit it. You're wrong.
Oh yes I'm wrong.

you yourself wouldn't trust a 100 heads toss, but hey ;)

I think the problem about froome has been proven by yourself extremely well.
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,856
0
0
hektoren said:
Well, EBH is as clean as they come, yet managed to lead Wiggo way up in the mountains last year, as well as being right up there for the sprints.
Quite frankly i'd expect a 1.9m rider at 69kgs to perform better than Edvald at 1.81m and 73kg in the mountains. Froome is 1.86 and 67-69kg. Go figure!
Armstrong was two inches shorter, and probably started some July(s) at 165lb, about 2kg more than 73 you think EBH is at. I think Cecchini has said if EBH lost weight, or was it Brailsford, that EBH has the numbers to be a winner in July. Would not surprise me. he climbs with more facility than Wiggins ever demonstrated in his ten years from Linda MAc >
 
May 26, 2009
3,687
1
0
King Boonen said:
I'm sorry but you again are wrong. Odds refer to a finite situation, but the coin toss isn't, I do understand the difference.
Perhaps the correct word is chance instead of odds. English isn't my native tongue.

A "fair coin toss" has an outocme undetermined by prior result. I said so many times.

Also you seem to think that the probability must equal the physical outcome, this is wrong. I can have a fair coin and toss it 1000 times and get heads every time. Doesn't mean it isn't fair. The probability of it ever happening is tiny but it can still happen.
I said a similar thing. But here we need to go back to the real question: we have an experiment with outcome A and outcome B. We run it 101 times. aafter 100 times we have only B. What is the logical estimate for 101?

And where have odds come into this? We are discussing probability.
is the word chances?

As to the second part of your post, if I toss a fair coin once I'm guaranteed a "100%" score in 100% of the tries. Is that once in a googolplex? Or maybe you should define your own terms rather than inferring others?
Every outcome of a 100 tosses is indeed rare.

But if we say: out of a 100 tosses we get 60 A, 40 B, the order in which they are tossed is unimportant. In a 100 A and then the next tosses are 100 B every toss is set.

Right back at you.
Sorry, I did not infer extra info, you did. The burden of proof is not on me.

No, you can't, again, this is about the maths NOT TOSSING AN ACTUAL COIN.
Okay.. King Boone, go to the post of von Mises and show me where he is talking about math? He is very clearly talking about a coin toss. You are the only one who tries to diminish it to a hypothetical perfect situation.

No. Nonsense. I do not have to point out stuff he did not say! Instead, point out the conditions you infer to or admit that indeed no conditions were given.
Again, the discussion is about the maths, not an actual coin toss. The maths dictate there is a 50/50 chance of heads or tails on the next toss.
In a perfect situation yes. But this is a coin toss performed in front of your eyes. You must give the next outcome. There were 100 tosses, all were B. Would you still say chances are 50%? Would you bet your money on A?

Nope, I have a bachelors degree, a masters degree and a Ph.D. 100 coin tosses is a tiny sample size, particularly when it is so easily repeatable.
Simply nonsense. 100 outcomes on a 101 population is extremely accurate.

You claim the answer is heads, and in a discussion about probability you didn't even place a probability on it, therefore one can only assume you think it is a fact the next coin toss will result in a head.
I claim the answer on von Mises example is heads. You are going back to this perfect mathematical excercise which von Mises did not put forward.

Os this correct? Are you failing to define terms again? Again, you don't have to say a word to mean it. you didn't say it's likely to be heads or it's almost certainly going to be heads. You said it will be heads, a statement of fact. The only logical conclusion is you you believe the first 100 tosses proved that the next toss would be the same.
Yes, that is indeed the logical conclusion ;)

Now you can shake your head about this, but you fail to see the flaw in von Mises example due to your abstracting it to a perfect mathematical problem.

You mean like saying the coin isn't fair?
Dear King Boonen. Who said the coin wasn't pure/fair? ME> Did I claim anyone else said it? Nope. So are you suggesting I put words in my own mouth? :confused:

Because you don't seem to grasp the difference between theoretical probability and experiment results.
No, I think you got this completely backwards. You are the only one talking about a perfect mathematical result. From the first post I pointed out the theortical answer (see http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=1261936&postcount=2125). I certainly know what you and von Mises tried to infer.

But what he said was:

If I flip a coin 100 times and get heads 100 times, what´s the probability to get head the 101 time?

No more, no less. My answer is that the obvious answer is HEADS. And sure, throw in my face that this is a "statement of fact" *shrug*

I have explained many times over and over again that this is a result of both logic and probability.

Even von Mises admitted that if this was performed before his eyes he would not bet on tails... and thus he managed to prove the point.
 
Jun 15, 2009
835
0
0
red_flanders said:
Clearly this is too late, but...it's enough. Let's end the discussion of flipping coins and stats. It's not germane to the topic any longer if it ever was.

Thanks.
I quite agree. Stats and coin-tossing came about because some believe that "if it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, has feathers and webbed feet and associates with ducks- then certainly I'll believe it's a duck."

A much more apt simile, wouldn't you say? And a perfect excuse to visit the realms of ornithology, a much neglected area for the clinic after the demise of the Chicken- Rasmussen! :D
 
May 26, 2009
3,687
1
0
hektoren said:
I quite agree. Stats and coin-tossing came about because some believe that "if it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, has feathers and webbed feet and associates with ducks- then certainly I'll believe it's a duck."

A much more apt simile, wouldn't you say? And a perfect excuse to visit the realms of ornithology, a much neglected area for the clinic after the demise of the Chicken- Rasmussen! :D
As I certainly derailed this thread into a tailspin I can only agree with a big:

QUACK!

:cool:
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,856
0
0
hektoren said:
I quite agree. Stats and coin-tossing came about because some believe that "if it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, has feathers and webbed feet and associates with ducks- then certainly I'll believe it's a duck."

A much more apt simile, wouldn't you say? And a perfect excuse to visit the realms of ornithology, a much neglected area for the clinic after the demise of the Chicken- Rasmussen! :D
i think rasmussen predated the inception. the fora admin had to create this sub-forum for miscreants like moi.
 
blackcat said:
Armstrong was two inches shorter, and probably started some July(s) at 165lb, about 2kg more than 73 you think EBH is at. I think Cecchini has said if EBH lost weight, or was it Brailsford, that EBH has the numbers to be a winner in July. Would not surprise me. he climbs with more facility than Wiggins ever demonstrated in his ten years from Linda MAc >
If we went strictly by Lab tests Mark Cavendish would still be working for Barclays.
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,856
0
0
blackcat said:
i think rasmussen predated the inception. the fora admin had to create this sub-forum for miscreants like moi.
on the, walks like a duck theme, i think charles yesalis wrote an opinion article in a paper of record like WaPo or NYTimes about the likelihood in mere sociological terms, when a sport is infested with doping, that you not only have a unique sample... but said sample wins when (as D-Queued said) your sum or aggregate of marginal gains, are not THE ROUNDING ERROR on a comprehensive doping program. doping is normalised in the peloton. yeah, the peloton may have backed off intensity, but it still defies belief that we have clean animators in the pointy end.

are these threads (which i am a chief participant) not the Clinic's version of insanity. doing same thing over and over again and expecting different results, channel coins tossed and independent and dependent variables.

we have gone down the rabbit hole. the peloton might well have a laugh at their creation of "clinicians" arguing over flies up a wall.
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,856
0
0
MatParker117 said:
If we went strictly by Lab tests Mark Cavendish would still be working for Barclays.
sprinter is different.

and EBH has shown ability from the day a 20yo stepped foot into the pro peloton. at 18 at lAvenir. and his winning record at Nord Bianchi or whatever that team he came up thru.

so, not really a relevant example. EBH has won selective races from day one. Cav has won San Remo which was a phenomenal performance, and the best ever sprint i have seen. but he is not a rider to win a purely selective race. best ever sprinter however. and i get your point. (respect the inention, inference)
 
Jun 15, 2009
835
0
0
blackcat said:
sprinter is different.

and EBH has shown ability from the day a 20yo stepped foot into the pro peloton. at 18 at lAvenir. and his winning record at Nord Bianchi or whatever that team he came up thru.

so, not really a relevant example. EBH has won selective races from day one. Cav has won San Remo which was a phenomenal performance, and the best ever sprint i have seen. but he is not a rider to win a purely selective race. best ever sprinter however. and i get your point. (respect the inention, inference)
Of course EBH is a relevant example to contrast what is possible in sheer, clean physical terms. What isn't relevant to the same extent is prior results, as there's so much down to chance, individual development into the ultimate biological potential of any given individual. Just think of all the relevant factors! Has he slept enough? Does he miss his girlfriend? Is he eating properly? How about the flu? Knee-problems, motivation, bike position, etc. etc. ad nauseam.

If it's physically possible for EBH to take wind and pull the Sky-train clean until the last 3-5km, it's not inconceivable that a lighter climber, with his eyes fixed on the SRM readout, making sure he doesn't go into red all day, in a protected position, can have energy left to surge clear the last few km's. Clean.
 

martinvickers

BANNED
Oct 15, 2012
4,903
0
0
It's why Cas rulings are sometimes so edgy.

For instance Contadors case about tainted meat is actually rather plausible considering the meat scandals. Of course, there were other indicators (plasticizers to start) which makes the probability of AC being clean rather small as well (^^). All things considered I do think he was punished just because they finally got something. The clen ruling in itself was (in my opinion, IANAL)not very convincing.
See that's why I like talking to you about these things - i may wholeheatedly disagree, but you're very civilised about it - much more fun for everyone when we are?

I'll be honest - i think, and it's only pure naive hunch, worth nothing, but i think Berti was very dirty, but oddly, now, is more or less clean - i think the real risk of a life ban has scared him straight - or straightER anyway. I remember the TT monster he used to be - he just ain't that guy anymore. not at the moment, anyway.

But yes, if was only minute amounts of Clen...and if say, Berti was a monster in the mountains but only ok on TT, they might have given some benefit of doubt. But in their guts, they knew what the plasticisers meant, and the monster TTs, and they took their chance.

Interesting enough, once top young GB hurdles prospect Callum Priestly was lost to the sport over Beef with Clen, if memory serves.

My fear,'cos i've always like watching the Bertster, is that he has had the "fear of froome" put into him. He's a confidence rider, and whereas i think he always thought, for example, sorry Andy Schleck, but one way or another you're in my pocket...with Froome I genuinely think, even after Vuelta 12, he just isn't entirely sure he has the beating of the guy in a 'fair fight'. Heavy '' round fair.

And I would be ****ed if that fear led to Berti taking "risks", you know what I'm saying?

As for Froome himself, my views are well known.
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,856
0
0
hektoren said:
Of course EBH is a relevant example to contrast what is possible in sheer, clean physical terms. What isn't relevant to the same extent is prior results, as there's so much down to chance, individual development into the ultimate biological potential of any given individual. Just think of all the relevant factors! Has he slept enough? Does he miss his girlfriend? Is he eating properly? How about the flu? Knee-problems, motivation, bike position, etc. etc. ad nauseam.

If it's physically possible for EBH to take wind and pull the Sky-train clean until the last 3-5km, it's not inconceivable that a lighter climber, with his eyes fixed on the SRM readout, making sure he doesn't go into red all day, in a protected position, can have energy left to surge clear the last few km's. Clean.
qualifier clean is not plausible. unless you are redefining it in peloton's terminology.

phenomenal rider, like they all are. even levi leipheimer. i say that regrettably too.
 
Jun 15, 2010
1,318
0
0
hektoren said:
Well, EBH is as clean as they come, yet managed to lead Wiggo way up in the mountains last year, as well as being right up there for the sprints.
Quite frankly i'd expect a 1.9m rider at 69kgs to perform better than Edvald at 1.81m and 73kg in the mountains. Froome is 1.86 and 67-69kg. Go figure!
But Edvald has a bigger engine than Froome.
 
Oct 1, 2010
41
0
0
Edvald clean?! That's an assertion I would take with a a rather large pinch of salt.

Edvald rides for Sky and is mountain domestique for them in the Tour. Would Sky allow one of their key helpers for the Tour to stay off the program the rest of the GT-team is on? I find that very hard to believe, but I guess we're going full circle here.

With the history of doping in cycling over the last 20 years no rider can meritlessly expect to be seen as clean just because they say so and certainly not one on the most suspicious team in the peleton. Sadly Edvald is tarnished by the company he keeps and the performances he puts in in what's clearly not a clean peleton.

So sorry I won't suspend my disbelief for him or any other cyclist. Do you want to be believed as clean as a cyclist? Then do all you can to prove it. Then we can talk.

So if you want to use your strawman argument "Sky is clean because Edvald is clean." Please prove the Edvald beeing clean first. The facts are certainly heavily stacked against it.
 
Jun 15, 2010
1,318
0
0
thehog said:
What is an engine?

Seriously what is this engine business?

Qualify your statement.
It is a non technical term used in cycling to describe an athletes cardio vascular system.Someone with a big engine would typically have a high power output at threshold.I don't believe it takes into account such things as immune system strength,pedaling efficiency or mental fortitude.
The term seems to be most freqently applied to rouleur types who do a lot of pulling on the front.Eg Stanard,Hayman,EBH.
Probably other people would have different opinions about the precise meaning.With regards to EBH,I once asked Dave Brailsford "who on the Sky squad has the most physical potential" He replied "EBH by some way"
I reckon he has a big engine and some off the chart lab results.He could probably wave his VO2 max at Lemond if he wanted to.
 
May 28, 2012
2,779
0
0
simo1733 said:
But Edvald has a bigger engine than Froome.
He does have a pretty crappy endurance. He's got a big engine, that quickly runs out of gas. It's all about efficiency in cycling.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts