Pulling a Wiggins

[The Hitch]

maybe *some* of the caught dopers dont fit in the usual ____/ pattern

because 1 or 2 exceptions, easily explained by proved doping, don't render it invalid.

but if you insist you can add the immense majority, or 99%, or the huge majority, in front of the statement.

the original point was about affirmations like "2500 points about cq median" which are mathematically wrong and also plain bull****.

and if semantic nazi its what you have left just quit it, its to much lolz.

You know what actually is "lolz"?

The fact that you made a claim about cq graphs of gt winners without offering any examples yourself, and yet when another poster actually does bother to post some graphs to challenge your baseless statement, which proves it wrong, you react with rage and insults as above, try to mock them, and yet continue to refuse to offer any backup yourself?

And that actually is - too much lolz.

 

[The Hitch]

this CQ graphs would be awesome if you could separate GC/stage races results points from 1 day race points. any way to do that?

Considering you have on 2 occasions in this thread portrayed yourself as the supreme authority on cq graphs, why don't you tell us?

 

[Zam_Olyas]

Considering you have on 2 occasions in this thread portrayed yourself as the supreme authority on cq graphs, why don't you tell us?

This Fin smells like some other poster to you?

 

[EnacheV]

Lets cut this graph

and this one

and 99% of the GT winners graphs. All register huge spikes in the year of the 1st GT win

From this pov i find Froome's one of the most calm graphs

Wiggins

2500 CQ point deviation my ***

19800 minutes of garbage

The quality of the forums have just greatly improved. This message is hidden because The Hitch is on your ignore list.

 

[The Hitch]

2500 CQ point deviation my ***
.

Froome's highest score: 2766 in 2013(could yet increase)

Froome's other scores- 77-253-170-126-779-1427.

Froome's scores arranged from lowest to highest

77-126-170-253-779-1427-2766

That is 7 numbers, so the median is the 4th number. The 4th number is 253.

So the highest score minus the median score is : 2766- 253.

Which is 2513.

And that is being kind to froome and not including his elite 2 score - 0 (from first year).

So I was correct, and when you say "2500 points my ***", you are wrong.

Feel free to admit it.

 

[del1962]

I dont know what you are all arguing about with CQ graphs, a wise man once said, there are lies, damned lies and statistics, I do believe that the guy's graph above has testified he came of dope before his peak, read his affadavit if you want to know,

this is why using CQ graphs for suspecting dopers is a fools game (except for the ones that hit the floor during their bans)

 

[The Hitch]

Now lets do Wiggins

Highest score - 2687 in 2012

Other scores

18-24-22-75-27-255-63-256-61-786-378-1323-473

Scores arranged lowest to highest.

18-22-24-27-61-63-75-255-256-378-473-786-1323-2687

14 numbers

So the median is the average of the 7th and 8th numbers.

So 255+75=330. 330/2=165.

So the highest score minus the median score is 2687 -165.

Which is 2522.

So once again, very very close to the 2500 mark I estimated. at the beginning.

And you are again, very wrong and end up with a bit of egg on your face considering the confidence with which you declare that I was wrong on that.

 

[rhubroma]

After juicing his performance to levels unseen in his career, Wiggins now cannot be bothered to ever try for a grand tour again. Convenient. Hesjedal was pretty much a joke this season. Even Contador does not seem willing to risk much. Is this the new strategy for doping: Dope yourself to the moon then coast on the results?

Who is next?

Wiggins gave cycling what it wanted: exposure in the lucrative Anglo-Saxon market, for which even Froome fits in nicely. As it was with Armstrong and access to the US market, so it is with Wiggins and the British sphere, for which champions from the traditional cycling nations of Europe are less convenient businesswise.

If there are casualties, even fatal ones, who cares.

 

[The Hitch]

I dont know what you are all arguing about with CQ graphs, a wise man once said, there are lies, damned lies and statistics,
)

The fact that someone said something once does not disprove the usefullness of statistics. Grow up.

Try telling Nate Sivler statistics don't matter because of some phrase from 2 centuries back.

Nonetheless it is hillarious how far some sky fans keep willing to go to defend the 2 miracles of modern sport. We already had a lot of you desperately declare that people can never be held accountable for what they say, in order to protect wiggins reputation from the concequences of his years of Omerta.

Now statistics shouldn't matter either hey?

Not to mention that, that phrase you offer generally refers to people manipulating statistics or having an ulterior motive for creating them in the first place.

With cq its a system that was created 10 years before Sky decided they would monopolize the Tour de France, and no one here is involved in compiling the numbers, so there is no bias to them.

Oh and you already posted cvv's graph. It doesn't prove much. Posting it again and again won't change that.

 

[burning]

http://cqranking.com/men/asp/gen/graphRiderHistory.asp?riderID=53

http://cqranking.com/men/asp/gen/graphRiderHistory.asp?riderID=161
These guys didnt suddenly quadrupled their points when they won their first GT's as a skybot told us as a law of cycling

 

[hrotha]

The skybot seems to be overlooking basic stuff like the different scales of the y axis (see Vande Velde vs Froome).

 

[LaFlorecita]

Lets cut this graph

That is the graph of a true champion

 

[LaFlorecita]

Lets cut this graph

and this one

and 99% of the GT winners graphs. All register huge spikes in the year of the 1st GT win

From this pov i find Froome's one of the most calm graphs

Wiggins

2500 CQ point deviation my ***

19800 minutes of garbage

The quality of the forums have just greatly improved. This message is hidden because The Hitch is on your ignore list.

PS the Froome graph looks "calm" because he has only 7 years on the x-axis and 3000 points on the y-axis. Make it 2000 on the y-axis and 12 years on the x-axis and the graph will look just as ridiculous as the others.

EDIT: what hrotha said basically

 

[del1962]

The fact that someone said something once does not disprove the usefullness of statistics. Grow up.

Try telling Nate Sivler statistics don't matter because of some phrase from 2 centuries back.

Nonetheless it is hillarious how far some sky fans keep willing to go to defend the 2 miracles of modern sport. We already had a lot of you desperately declare that people can never be held accountable for what they say, in order to protect wiggins reputation from the concequences of his years of Omerta.

Now statistics shouldn't matter either hey?

Not to mention that, that phrase you offer generally refers to people manipulating statistics or having an ulterior motive for creating them in the first place.

With cq its a system that was created 10 years before Sky decided they would monopolize the Tour de France, and no one here is involved in compiling the numbers, so there is no bias to them.

Oh and you already posted cvv's graph. It doesn't prove much. Posting it again and again won't change that.

LOL

The clinician would never to a graph and use it to proove their doper accusations, you havin a larf.

The performance is proof mob remind me of one of their superstars, Vayer, twisting stuff to proove there claims and being ignorant and arrogaant towards those who disagree in the process.

 

[The Hitch]

LOL

you havin a larf.

I am reading this post. Looks like its been written by someone with an Oriental Language background who only started learning English 2 months ago.

The clinician would never to a graph and use it to proove their doper accusations.

The performance is proof mob remind me of one of their superstars, Vayer, twisting stuff to proove there claims and being ignorant and arrogaant towards those who disagree in the proces

 

[burning]

That is the graph of a true champion

Valverde's graph looks better to me

 

[del1962]

http://cqranking.com/men/asp/gen/graphRiderHistory.asp?riderID=53

http://cqranking.com/men/asp/gen/graphRiderHistory.asp?riderID=161
These guys didnt suddenly quadrupled their points when they won their first GT's as a skybot told us as a law of cycling

Don't know what the grasphs of a bunch of dopers brings to the discussion, except to show the fallacy that if you have a sudden jump you are a doper, I suspect most dopers make that decision from a young age.

 

[the sceptic]

So sudden jumps in performance now means you are clean? nice to know.

 

[mewmewmew13]

So when did this thread take on the idiotic "Sir" Wiggo title???
what the ....

what did I miss???

 

[Cyivel]

I thought the original title was fine not sure why the OP changed it but up to him I guess.

 

[mewmewmew13]

I thought the original title was fine not sure why the OP changed it but up to him I guess.

Pretty sure Bro would not do that...doesn't sound a bit like him....

 

[Benotti69]

I thought the original title was fine not sure why the OP changed it but up to him I guess.

A mod changed it. See a few posts or pages back.

I think the title an the OP are quite clear. I do understand your point about pulling a Shlech etc though.

However the words used are immaterial, ts the issue that matters. I AM going to change the title slightly, depersonalising to the modern caricature

 

[EnacheV]

So sudden jumps in performance now means you are clean? nice to know.

i think it means nothing

dope warriors see it as a sign of doping

some fans see it like graphs of a true champion

i personally don't make conclusions where there is none to make logically

and a question to mods

can we hot link cqranking images ? some sites get upset if you bandwidth leech them

 

[The Hitch]

i personally don't make conclusions where there is none to make logically

Yes you do. You declared that wiggins and froome did not have a 2500 point difference between their highest score and their median.

It turns out they do.

You also declared that all gt contenders had the same graph spike upon winning a gt and were proved wrong on that too.

Just because you aren't smart enough to argue with posters here, don't lie about it.

 

[Netserk]

So the median is the average of the 7th and 8th numbers.

:facepalm: