When is the smackdown on Chris Horner?

[roundabout]

Why is Horner's TOC win being used as Genesis when he had a far more impressive one a year earlier against Sammy, Piti, Murito and RoboGesink?

with the exception of Alberto Contador I don’t think there’s anyone that can drop me

And that was spanking everyone in the Giro Contador, not the current version

 

[The Hitch]

And that was spanking everyone in the Giro Contador, not the current version

Looking back at that comment, knowing what we know now (Vuelta 2013), boy was Cadel Evans lucky Horner crashed out of the Tour.

 

[Ferminal]

Yes in a parallel universe the podium is 1. Wiggins 2. Horner 3. Contador (one bad day).

 

[blackcat]

Dude, it was the Tour of Freakin' California. You know, the race where the only reason anyone of note shows up is to get a tan and ogle the plethora of fake breasts. No matter what Liggett says, it is not the fourth GT. It's not even the tenth GT. You probably could have breached the top ten if you could keep out of the riders' post-race drinking contests.

silly cones in silicon valley brah,

its gonna be a fillum by John Waters.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

I'm rooting for Horner to p!ss off the Skybots. He's doped, and I hope he dopes enough to beat a doping Froome...and Nibali....and Wigans......and Contador.....and Evans......and...

I think the rush to get in line in the Horner line happened when, after the Vuelta, all of the Skybots came around throwing sh!t at Horner, pretending their guy's win was more legitimate because the Atomic Jock Race is a key indicator of TdF success...anyway

Like everyone says "AMERICA FU*K YEA!!!"

 

[proffate]

“If he rides like he did at the Vuelta, he can eat cheeseburgers every day,” he said. “The experience of Chris is huge. He’s been around 20 years. It’s difficult to change the mentality of veteran riders. If they’re used to following a program, and they’re ready to race, we’re open to it.”

http://velonews.competitor.com/2014...erfect-fit-can-still-eat-cheeseburgers_315447

 

[Ferminal]

[x] Anglo
[x] New Cycling
[x] Happy to run a team of dopers like anyone else

 

[Dazed and Confused]

4th GT or not, that Cali '11 with Horner and Levi was frickin' ridiculous.

Bald eagles flying up the mountain:

American dream come true. Doping in a home race will not shift the cold war balance.

The most interesting thing was Phat's decision to abandon testing at the race.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Here's what's funny to me: What are all of the Skybots gonna say to justify Porte, Wigans, and Froome(and anyone else in their train) destroying a rider they all resoundingly condemn as a worthless doper? Because the reality is that there is no way Horner is going to beat any of those dudes.

But Sky are the only ones capable of cleanly beating cheating, dirty dopers...this is the year their excuses dry up.

 

[thehog]

Here's what's funny to me: What are all of the Skybots gonna say to justify Porte, Wigans, and Froome(and anyone else in their train) destroying a rider they all resoundingly condemn as a worthless doper? Because the reality is that there is no way Horner is going to beat any of those dudes.

But Sky are the only ones capable of cleanly beating cheating, dirty dopers...this is the year their excuses dry up.

It's Britain vs USA!

 

[veganrob]

He11 yeah!! May the best doper win. Bam.

 

[the sceptic]

http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/a-new-chapter-for-horner-at-lampre-merida

"Clearly there will be more results for him to put together over the future," Horner said, still confident that he has nothing to hide.

"You can't just look at one blood value. If he needs more values from more Grand Tours, I don't have any problem with that at all.

"I don't have any problems with what he said. He doesn't say that I'm guilty. All he says is that he needs more results and blood work. It would be perfect if I do the Giro, the Tour of Spain, and I get tested throughout. Then he'll have more and more chances to compare."

Horner is a grand tour winner we can believe in. I like his transparency.

Forza Chris.

 

[roundabout]

From there I got a full ten days of Rosetta Stone in

Can now google where Nigrelli's pharmacy is located

 

[The Hitch]

http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/a-new-chapter-for-horner-at-lampre-merida



Horner is a grand tour winner we can believe in. I like his transparency.

Forza Chris.

It's certainly a more intellectually engaging argument than- "I will ride the tour to show that it is clean".

 

[Master50]

I am very happy for pappy on his contract. I am looking forward to see the old man do well and show what a motivated person of senior experience can do as an athlete. Just too bad this thread will go on for another year.
Have a great season Chris.

 

[ScienceIsCool]

I have fun with data. It's what I do. More data. So with that in mind, I decided to figure out what age everyone was when they won their first Vuelta. It was a bit tedious, but the results are kind of amazing, so I thought I'd share them.

From the very first Vuelta to 2012, the average age of a first time winner is just under 27.5 years old. The youngest is 22, and the oldest is 33. The results are normally distributed and the standard deviation is 2.6 years.

This means that Horner, at ~42 years old is nearly 6 sigma away from the average. This also means that statistically, it will take another 2-3 million years before someone that age again wins his first Vuelta. Let that sink in a minute...

And here's the raw data for anyone wanting to graph it (I highly recommend it!). The list is the winner's age, in order from first Vuelta until 2012.

22
29
29
27
29
23
27
27
31
31
26
27
23
22
25
29
28
27
29
27
26
29
25
32
27
28
31
30
25
24
33
24
30
25
24
25
30
26
32
28
25
31
27
29
28
26
26
29
27
27
26
29
26
30

John Swanson

 

[DirtyWorks]

This means that Horner, at ~42 years old is nearly 6 sigma away from the average. This also means that statistically, it will take another 2-3 million years before someone that age again wins his first Vuelta. Let that sink in a minute...

John Swanson

You bone idle w@nkers are all alike. None of you believe in miracles. I see human spirit defying long, long odds on the television all the time.


Pappy should be pretty boring until we get close to a grand tour. And then, the power is turned on to full!!!!

 

[mewmewmew13]

I have fun with data. It's what I do. More data. So with that in mind, I decided to figure out what age everyone was when they won their first Vuelta. It was a bit tedious, but the results are kind of amazing, so I thought I'd share them.

From the very first Vuelta to 2012, the average age of a first time winner is just under 27.5 years old. The youngest is 22, and the oldest is 33. The results are normally distributed and the standard deviation is 2.6 years.

This means that Horner, at ~42 years old is nearly 6 sigma away from the average. This also means that statistically, it will take another 2-3 million years before someone that age again wins his first Vuelta. Let that sink in a minute...

And here's the raw data for anyone wanting to graph it (I highly recommend it!). The list is the winner's age, in order from first Vuelta until 2012.

22
29
29
27
29
23
27
27
31
31
26
27
23
22
25
29
28
27
29
27
26
29
25
32
27
28
31
30
25
24
33
24
30
25
24
25
30
26
32
28
25
31
27
29
28
26
26
29
27
27
26
29
26
30

John Swanson

VERY entertaining thought! Thanks for the post JS

 

[Red Lobster]

This means that Horner, at ~42 years old is nearly 6 sigma away from the average. This also means that statistically, it will take another 2-3 million years before someone that age again wins his first Vuelta. Let that sink in a minute...

The mind boggles when one thinks about how much he could have won had he figured out [whatever it is he has going on now] fifteen years ago.

 

[ulrichw]

Unless you believe that all previous winners won their Vueltas clean and that Horner was the only dirty rider in "his" Vuelta, these data just go to support the miraculous nature of his victory.

Also, having little more than an intuitive understanding of stats, I'm wondering how one can establish (or refute) that this group is normally distributed, or close enough to normally distributed (since it clearly cannot be a pure normal distribution) for the calculations to be valid.

From a glance at a histogram of the data, it seems plausible that the distribution may not be normal (it's very "lumpy" when looking at 1yr baskets).

Finally, if you include Horner's result in the data set, the standard deviation goes up to 3.25, putting him around 4.4 standard deviations from the mean rather than 6.

I believe (if my calculations are correct) this means that on average it would take another 185,000 years before Chris' feat is repeated.

(Just realized I used 42 as Chris' age when he was 41 when he won the Vuelta - oh well, doesn't change the numbers that much)

 

[ScienceIsCool]

The data is what it is. N<60 means that fitting to a normal distribution is not that great, but the histogram alone shows that the distribution is not randomly distributed. It has a strong peak near mean and falls away on either side. For all intents and purposes, it makes sense to use the idea of number of sigmas from mean.

And no, you don't include the measured sample (42 yrs old) when comparing to the population. So he's 5.6 sigmas from mean. What can we conclude from this?

- Horner does not even remotely belong to the population of first time Vuelta winners that he was compared to (in the statistical, t-test kind of way).
- To be that far of an outlier usually suggests a strong bias or influence.
- The data doesn't tell you what that influence is.
- Considering he is certainly not the first rider to spend part of his career as a domestique, this is probably not the reason.
- Considering that most riders spend at least part of their career injured (ex: Lemond had his chest blown apart with a shotgun before winning two more Tours), this is also probably not the reason.
- Riis and Pantani were bald, so maybe there's something to do with that... Nah. That's just silly.
- Etc, etc, etc.

What do we know that can affect performance in a way that can explain this way?

- Better training? Nope.
- Better equipment? Nope.
- Motivation? Nope.
- Diet (ex: rice cakes)? Nope.
- Doping? Yup.

Barring new data, the most likely explanation is that Horner doped and doped hard to win his Vuelta. It's science. <shrug>

John Swanson

 

[Granville57]

I have fun with data. It's what I do. More data. So with that in mind, I decided to figure out what age everyone was when they won their first Vuelta. It was a bit tedious, but the results are kind of amazing, so I thought I'd share them.

From the very first Vuelta to 2012, the average age of a first time winner is just under 27.5 years old. The youngest is 22, and the oldest is 33. The results are normally distributed and the standard deviation is 2.6 years.

This means that Horner, at ~42 years old is nearly 6 sigma away from the average. This also means that statistically, it will take another 2-3 million years before someone that age again wins his first Vuelta. Let that sink in a minute...

And here's the raw data for anyone wanting to graph it (I highly recommend it!). The list is the winner's age, in order from first Vuelta until 2012.

22
29
29
27
29
23
27
27
31
31
26
27
23
22
25
29
28
27
29
27
26
29
25
32
27
28
31
30
25
24
33
24
30
25
24
25
30
26
32
28
25
31
27
29
28
26
26
29
27
27
26
29
26
30

John Swanson

To the highlighted:
I bet that when that does happen, Horner will be in 2nd.

 

[ulrichw]

The data is what it is. N<60 means that fitting to a normal distribution is not that great, but the histogram alone shows that the distribution is not randomly distributed. It has a strong peak near mean and falls away on either side. For all intents and purposes, it makes sense to use the idea of number of sigmas from mean.

You clearly are more knowledgeable than I in the subject, but isn't this last statement a little out there? Thinking about the nature of aging, we know for sure that the age distribution can't be a normal distribution.

My point was that even considering that Chris was doping, given that a reasonable amount of doping has likely been going on during the sample period, his result is still "miraculous" - i.e., the odds that a doper would stand out like this are nearly as infinitesimal as the odds that a non-doper would stand out like this.

And no, you don't include the measured sample (42 yrs old) when comparing to the population.

Fair enough - but when you make a statement that the *next* win from a 42 year old will not happen until 2-3 million years from now, shouldn't you include him in that population?

So he's 5.6 sigmas from mean. What can we conclude from this?
[...]
What do we know that can affect performance in a way that can explain this way?
[...]
- Doping? Yup.
[...]It's science.
John Swanson

I don't disagree with your first list of arguments.

I still beg to differ w.r.t. your final conclusion. Your argument seems tautological to me. i.e., because the only explanation for standout performances is doping, and because Horner had a standout performance, Horner must be doping.

The science says that his performance is standout, not that he's doping. IMO, that's conjecture. (Conjecture that I agree with, but conjecture nonetheless)

We know that doping was widely distributed in the peloton, and there doesn't appear to be any real evidence to prove or disprove that it isn't still widely distributed. So to say that doping is the prime explanation for a standout performance is a tough one - why would precisely Chris Horner have access to such a standout doping program?

IMO, Horner's performance is a standout doped performance in what is likely a field of dopers.

We know that doping isn't miraculous (certainly not 6-sigma miraculous) - otherwise why weren't DiLuca and Santambrogio battering Nibali in the Giro?

Therefore it seems to me that there's likely more than doping going on here. e.g., despite his probable doping, Horner is also benefiting from an exceptional (quite possibly natural) resistance to aging, and a near-optimal training program, etc.

A separate interesting note on your dataset is that there is no obvious bias toward older winners during the period one would expect doping to be at its peak.

 

[ScienceIsCool]

re: ulrichw's (good) questions:

The age distribution of the general population is not what we are analyzing. It's the age distribution of the Vuelta winners. And yes, for all intents and purposes it is Normally (as opposed to randomly, single-sided, etc) distributed. Therefore the use of notions such as sigma is "valid" for the purpose of this analysis.

To the second part of your question, let's finish the analysis before looking for ways to describe that data.

"Fair enough - but when you make a statement that the *next* win from a 42 year old will not happen until 2-3 million years from now, shouldn't you include him in that population?"

Consider this: You have three apples. You have described them by size, weight and color. You have a new object (an orange) and are wondering if it is the same as the apples. Do you average in the size, weight and color of the orange before comparing? No. You compare the orange to the average of the apples.

So we come to the conclusion that Horner is miraculously different. That could actually be the end of our analysis. Without any tautological reasoning at all, we can still ask ourselves "What do we know that can explain this deviation from normal"?

The most obvious answer from the list of possible reasons (by a super-wide margin) is a ferocious amount of doping. Put another way:

Through history, several lesser riders (NON-Joop Zoetemelk's, Eddy Merckx, Lucha Herrera, et al) have won the Vuelta. That is not exceptional. However, they all won them before they were thirty...

John Swanson

 

[proffate]

Mr Swanson's statistical analysis is biased IMO. The setup is cherry-picked to make Horner look bad. Yes, he's an extreme outlier when it comes to "age at first vuelta win". He's a little less of an outlier when it comes to "age at vuelta win". The latter actually seems more interesting to me if you're discussing what's humanly possible.

The other source of bias is how few riders of any type are still active at Horner's age. We don't really know how a 41 year old performs because we only have two current examples, Jens Voigt and Chris Horner. On average, protour 41 year olds are better than 27 year olds.

The analysis that would be most interesting imo is: what percent of the time does a rider who enters the Vuelta win it, bucketed by age.