• We're giving away a Cyclingnews water bottle! Find out more here!

If there was one clean rider...

Page 12 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Re:

ebandit said:
1..boardman...2 ..olano.....3..jalabert.........

Mark L

assuming it was top 3
No. It was Boardman, Ullrich and one random.

In 1998 they tested the winner of the stage, the yellow jersey (Ullrich from 1997) and one random rider.

1 in 3 chance that is was Boardman.
 
Re: agenda

ebandit said:
why not hoggy....more likely it was NOT boardman........3 to 1 against..

Mark L
How can it be '3 to 1 against'? 3:1 is the payout terms not the probability of Boardman being the EPO 'visable positive' which I expressed.

Its basic math.

"3:1" or "3 to 1" means that the payoff is 3/1 (or "three times") the original bet, if it succeeds. Such a payoff reflects the bookmaker's (or counterparty's) belief that the odds of success are less than 1 in 4 (4=1+3) or less than 25%.
In other terms;

1 in 3 is 33.333% not >25%.
 
Aug 2, 2012
4,219
1
0
...............still more likely it was one of the others.....most of all as 1 was ulrich
Mark L
 
Re:

ebandit said:
...............still more likely it was one of the others.....most of all as 1 was ulrich
Mark L
Its not "more likely", because the other two were "missing", they too could have been "EPO positive", there is a significant chance that all 3 were positive.

You don't appear have a handle on basic math and probability so its hard to take you seriously. I sense you're really not trying to contribute in a sensible fashion.
 
Re: Re:

thehog said:
Yes, why would a rider during the height of EPO use/no hematocrit test and during the Festina Affair on a French team dope? It would be incredulous to think that would occur :rolleyes:


I think you might have to do a little better than that BigCog :rolleyes:
Bassons fits that bill exactly : he rode during the EPO criteria and for a French Team. He didn't dope. Just saying that everyone doped during that era and using rolling eye smileys isn't exactly proof is it.
 
Re:

ebandit said:
cycling forum....not a maths forum.....

Mark L
True.

But if you can't even get basic math correct then your argument falls away in a significant way.

So back on topic we are back at 1 in 3 chance of Boardman positive with the other two samples potentially be positive also. Its not anymore complex than that.

So for the thread title, "one clean rider", I'm not sure Boardman could be consider clean based on the 1998 prologue testing.
 
Re: Re:

TheSpud said:
thehog said:
Yes, why would a rider during the height of EPO use/no hematocrit test and during the Festina Affair on a French team dope? It would be incredulous to think that would occur :rolleyes:


I think you might have to do a little better than that BigCog :rolleyes:
Bassons fits that bill exactly : he rode during the EPO criteria and for a French Team. He didn't dope. Just saying that everyone doped during that era and using rolling eye smileys isn't exactly proof is it.
Agreed, perhaps I was being a little facetious or using humor in an ironic sense. Yes, being part of 'that era' doesn't mean doping 100% on its own. However its highly likely that being in that time meant you were doping. There were anomalies to the rule that "everyone doped", however, they are in a significant minority.

Bassons often gets brought up. He is one of a few "outliers" for that period, the fact he as a singular who didn't dope doesn't actually mean others didn't dope or that they can associate themselves to Bassons to get a clean bill of cleanliness.

In relation to Boardman, I don't think Boardman is any way associated with Bassons, thus the two are separate. Bassons good work has nothing to do with CB.
 
Re: Re:

thehog said:
TheSpud said:
thehog said:
Yes, why would a rider during the height of EPO use/no hematocrit test and during the Festina Affair on a French team dope? It would be incredulous to think that would occur :rolleyes:


I think you might have to do a little better than that BigCog :rolleyes:
Bassons fits that bill exactly : he rode during the EPO criteria and for a French Team. He didn't dope. Just saying that everyone doped during that era and using rolling eye smileys isn't exactly proof is it.
Agreed, perhaps I was being a little facetious or using humor in an ironic sense. Yes, being part of 'that era' doesn't mean doping 100% on its own. However its highly likely that being in that time meant you were doping. There were anomalies to the rule that "everyone doped", however, they are in a significant minority.

Bassons often gets brought up. He is one of a few "outliers" for that period, the fact he as a singular who didn't dope doesn't actually mean others didn't dope or that they can associate themselves to Bassons to get a clean bill of cleanliness.

In relation to Boardman, I don't think Boardman is any way associated with Bassons, thus the two are separate. Bassons good work has nothing to do with CB.
Fair point - and you are correct about that era. I've never heard anything about CB doping apart from the usual "of course he was" comments here though.
 
Aug 2, 2012
4,219
1
0
sure

thehog said:
ebandit said:
So for the thread title, "one clean rider", I'm not sure Boardman could be consider clean based on the 1998 prologue testing.
none of us can be absolutely sure but if you're pointing fingers more is required

than making assumptions.....

now where was the boardman thread?.......we could resume as and when new info comes to light

Mark L
 
Re: Re:

thehog said:
ebandit said:
cycling forum....not a maths forum.....

Mark L
True.

But if you can't even get basic math correct then your argument falls away in a significant way.

So back on topic we are back at 1 in 3 chance of Boardman positive with the other two samples potentially be positive also. Its not anymore complex than that.

So for the thread title, "one clean rider", I'm not sure Boardman could be consider clean based on the 1998 prologue testing.
No, we are back at a 1 in 3 chance that CB might have had a potential positive sample based on visual interpretation (test A) but nothing from test B or C (although its not clear whether they were performed our not). Its also worth noting that CB wasn't mention in the list of positives or even the suspicious list.
 
Re: sure

ebandit said:
thehog said:
ebandit said:
So for the thread title, "one clean rider", I'm not sure Boardman could be consider clean based on the 1998 prologue testing.
none of us can be absolutely sure but if you're pointing fingers more is required

than making assumptions.....

now where was the boardman thread?.......we could resume as and when new info comes to light

Mark L
Again, I'm not pointing a finger nor making an 'assumption'; I'm using factual evidence based on probability; there is a 33.333% chance or greater than Boardman doped for the prologue at the 1998 Tour de France. Fact.

It cannot be anymore simpler, thus based on that evidence, I'm not sure he can be "one clean rider".
 
Aug 2, 2012
4,219
1
0
dirty

thehog said:
ebandit said:
thehog said:
ebandit said:
So for the thread title, "one clean rider", I'm not sure Boardman could be consider clean based on the 1998 prologue testing.
none of us can be absolutely sure but if you're pointing fingers more is required

than making assumptions.....
Again, I'm not pointing a finger nor making an 'assumption'; I'm using factual evidence based on probability; there is a 33.333% chance or greater than Boardman doped for the prologue at the 1998 Tour de France. Fact.

It cannot be anymore simpler, thus based on that evidence, I'm not sure he can be "one clean rider".
so you don't know....but you want him to be dirty....right!

Mark L
 
Re: dirty

ebandit said:
thehog said:
ebandit said:
thehog said:
ebandit said:
So for the thread title, "one clean rider", I'm not sure Boardman could be consider clean based on the 1998 prologue testing.
none of us can be absolutely sure but if you're pointing fingers more is required

than making assumptions.....
Again, I'm not pointing a finger nor making an 'assumption'; I'm using factual evidence based on probability; there is a 33.333% chance or greater than Boardman doped for the prologue at the 1998 Tour de France. Fact.

It cannot be anymore simpler, thus based on that evidence, I'm not sure he can be "one clean rider".
so you don't know....but you want him to be dirty....right!

Mark L
No, clearly you didn't read what I had written. I said, based on the evidence Boardman cannot be classed "clean" - as the title of this thread "one clean rider".

Appears you're making an incorrect interpretation that I'm certifying him dirty, please read through the text to avoid confusion, I've outlined it in the most simple terms.
 
Oct 16, 2010
13,578
1
0
It's good info, hog, on the 1998 prologue, I wasn't aware of that.
The timing of Boardman's success right in the middle of the EPO era makes this a nobrainer.

btw, Boardman's coach Peter Keen was a fan of Conconi, iirc.
Keen used to pick Boardman and Sciandri as his road captains for the UK road races in the 90s.
You can't be antidoping and pick Sciandri as your road captain. You just can't.
Also, wasn't Keen was one of the driving forces behind BC's World Class Performance Plan where the real big BC doping started.
D. Millar post-suspension about Keen:
Millar said yesterday that he had only realised what proper coaching was when he began working with the World Class Performance Plan this year, because the moral support it provided made him determined to perform without using drugs.

"The only reason I went 'clean' was because I found Dave Brailsford [the WCPP director] and Peter Keen [his coach]. They have a decent support system, a proper team. They are 10 times more professional than Cofidis will ever be. The ratio of support staff to riders is far higher, they all know their jobs, there is a proper hierarchy."
(The '(...)' around 'clean' are in the original :) )

edit: on the plus side, Boardman was one of the first to warn the UCI about the possible dangers of motordoping:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/boardman-warned-the-uci-of-risks-of-bike-doping/
a pity he never blew the whistle on any of the doping going on around him.
 
May 15, 2014
361
0
0
Re: sure

thehog said:
I'm using factual evidence based on probability; there is a 33.333% chance or greater than Boardman doped for the prologue at the 1998 Tour de France. Fact.

It cannot be anymore simpler, thus based on that evidence, I'm not sure he can be "one clean rider".
I'm no mathematician, but... Based on the evidence you produced, I'd say there's 33.33% chance that the positive sample on the list is CB's. Not 33.33% chance that he doped at the prologue, or that he is, indeed a doper. These last 2 would require other evidences for an accurate calculation.

thehog said:
Bassons often gets brought up. He is one of a few "outliers" for that period, the fact he as a singular who didn't dope doesn't actually mean others didn't dope or that they can associate themselves to Bassons to get a clean bill of cleanliness.
Of course not, but with Bassons the 100% dopers odds disappear and a door opens. And the way he was treated for opening his mouth certainly didn't help other clean riders to open theirs. It might even have lead clean riders to dope... If, in 1998, within a team as dirty as Festina, with a doper as popular as Virenque, with such a game changer as EPO there was AT LEAST one clean guy, potentially there were clean guys since the birth of cycling. You said significant minority, I'd add significant SILENT minority.
 
Re: sure

@NL_LeMondFans said:
thehog said:
I'm using factual evidence based on probability; there is a 33.333% chance or greater than Boardman doped for the prologue at the 1998 Tour de France. Fact.

It cannot be anymore simpler, thus based on that evidence, I'm not sure he can be "one clean rider".
I'm no mathematician,
Indeed...
 
May 6, 2016
145
0
0
Is there any chance that a clean Boardman could win a prolouge against an EPO fueled field ? Honestly, I feel that it does not sound possible.....what you guys think ?
 
May 15, 2014
361
0
0
Re: sure

thehog said:
@NL_LeMondFans said:
thehog said:
I'm using factual evidence based on probability; there is a 33.333% chance or greater than Boardman doped for the prologue at the 1998 Tour de France. Fact.

It cannot be anymore simpler, thus based on that evidence, I'm not sure he can be "one clean rider".
I'm no mathematician,
Indeed...
Ok, since this is established, could you please enlighten me, then ?

From what I understood, there were 3 samples taken on the prologue and one of them was positive, correct ?

We don't have the names of the riders, correct ?

Assuming one of the 3 riders is CB, we have 33,33% chance that the positive sample is CB's, correct ?

If I'm not wrong about all this, then we agree so far.

But that's not what you're saying. What you're saying is :
thehog said:
there is a 33.333% chance or greater than Boardman doped for the prologue at the 1998 Tour de France. Fact.
But, there weren't only 3 riders riding the 1998 TDF prologue, right ? Let's say they there were 200 riders. Based on the facts you have, only 1 of them tested positive. So, in my opinion, it's not 1/3 but 1/200. Hence it's not 33,33% chance that "Boardman doped for the prologue of the 1998 TDF" but rather 0,5%.

I know a lot more riders doped in 1998. I'm just genuinely questioning the maths because, as I said, I'm no mathematician. To me, based on these facts, we're closer to 0,5% than 33,33%.
 
We know Boardman was tested because he won the prologue. The rules at the time, tested the stage winner, the yellow jersey and one picked at random.

Therefore out of the 3 tests taken for the prologue, of we which we know one was Boardman, there is a 1 in 3 chance it was him who was "visible positive".

You're making assumption that he might not have been tested but we know he was because he won the stage.
 
May 15, 2014
361
0
0
thehog said:
We know Boardman was tested because he won the prologue. The rules at the time, tested the stage winner, the yellow jersey and one picked at random.

Therefore out of the 3 tests taken for the prologue, of we which we know one was Boardman, there is a 1 in 3 chance it was him who was "visible positive".

You're making assumption that he might not have been tested but we know he was because he won the stage.
Ok, but the maths were good. :D

Indeed ! :cool:
 
@NL_LeMondFans said:
thehog said:
We know Boardman was tested because he won the prologue. The rules at the time, tested the stage winner, the yellow jersey and one picked at random.

Therefore out of the 3 tests taken for the prologue, of we which we know one was Boardman, there is a 1 in 3 chance it was him who was "visible positive".

You're making assumption that he might not have been tested but we know he was because he won the stage.
Ok, but the maths were good. :D

Indeed ! :cool:
Agreed, we could go further, due to the other two tests that were missing but the math would get complicated - by that I mean there was a 33.33% chance it was him but there is less than 66.66% chance that it wasn't him (due to the unknown values - ie they weren't negative and they weren't positive).

Lets just keep it at 33.33% chance that it was him.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
M The Clinic 34
Similar threads
Tour de Cleans?

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts