Response to Le Monde editorial -- analysis of rising speeds

For the statistically inclined (and I realize that may not include many) I
have put up a small web site with some analysis of GC winners's speeds,
1947-2003.

If you recall, an editorial in the French newspaper Le Monde shortly after
the end of the 2003 Tour had suggested that recently rising speeds might be
circumstantial evidence of doping. Some correspondence I exchanged about
this editorial with another reader of this group led to the creation of the
site.

In a word, it does not completely refute the doping allegation, but casts
some doubt on the interpretation of the data presented by Le Monde, while
examining the relationship between GC winners' speeds and Tour length
over the period mentioned above.

You can see for yourself, if so inclinded, at
http://home.earthlink.net/~amg13. Comments can be posted here -- the
comments feature of the earthlink
site builder is presently non-functional.

Cheers,

-- AMG

This is just impossible to quantify in any way. Shorter tour doesn't
mean anything because other variables like attacks, wind, inclines,
strategies, rest days have much more to do with it. There is nothing you
can add or take away from the doping argument based on tour speeds,
there are way too many factors and any guesses are too prone to be
affected by lack of data and randomness.

BTW: Anyone that watched the tour and understands time trialing knew
that this years race was over before the final TT. LA did not have to
push himself with his lead, rain tends to tighten the spread, the wind
off the coast their is predominately west to east, (which also
tightens the spread), relatively flat terrain lowers the spread also
and the radio communication allowed Lance the luxury of just keeping
Jan in range.

It was a boring place to put a time trial.

At the least radio communucation should not be allowed in a 'race of
truth'. Cycling (doped or not) has always been about pushing the limits
within each rider and not just riding defensively. I would like to see
the radio taken out altogether but TTs are a start.



--
--------------------------
Posted via cyclingforums.com
http://www.cyclingforums.com

I would like to recommend a great book to anyone interested in
these things:

Nassim Talebs "Fooled by Randomness"



--
--------------------------
Posted via cyclingforums.com
http://www.cyclingforums.com

never_doped wrote:
I would like to recommend a great book to anyone interested in
these things:

Nassim Talebs "Fooled by Randomness"

I'm not quite sure I'd describe it as a "great" book. A tad
self-aggrandizing for my tastes. In any event, I would have thought that
the underlying thesis of the book, that sometimes what we think of as
pattern is only the result of randomness, would apply to the points you've
been trying to make in other threads.

In article , Robert Chung
wrote:

never_doped wrote:
I would like to recommend a great book to anyone interested in
these things:

Nassim Talebs "Fooled by Randomness"

I'm not quite sure I'd describe it as a "great" book. A tad
self-aggrandizing for my tastes. In any event, I would have thought that
the underlying thesis of the book, that sometimes what we think of as
pattern is only the result of randomness, would apply to the points you've
been trying to make in other threads.

He didn't actually say he had read AND understood the book.

-WG

"never_doped" wrote in message
...

At the least radio communucation should not be allowed in a 'race of
truth'.




Dumbass -

All they'd have to do is give time splits over the megaphone, like they used
to.

In article , Kurgan
Gringioni wrote:

"never_doped" wrote in message
...

At the least radio communucation should not be allowed in a 'race of
truth'.




Dumbass -

All they'd have to do is give time splits over the megaphone, like they used
to.

Which is worse, hearing VENGA! VENGA! VENGA! in your earpiece AND from
a megaphone behind you for the entire TT or just from the megaphone?

-WG

"Kurgan Gringioni" wrote in
t:


"never_doped" wrote in message
...

At the least radio communucation should not be allowed in a 'race of
truth'.

Dumbass -

All they'd have to do is give time splits over the megaphone, like
they used to.


And then we have ONCE using the radio for time splits so Saiz can yell
"Venga" over the megaphone. He probably tried yelling "venga" over radio,
but the riders could just take their earpieces out.

NS

never_doped wrote:
This is just impossible to quantify in any way. Shorter tour doesn't
mean anything because other variables like attacks, wind, inclines,
strategies, rest days have much more to do with it. There is nothing you
can add or take away from the doping argument based on tour speeds,
there are way too many factors and any guesses are too prone to be
affected by lack of data and randomness.


But aren't the above factors more likely to be random, rather than
systematic? For example, would you expect frequency of attacks to show
trends lasting twenty years?

The winds are a little trickier, since climate can change on longer time
scales. Since the broad patterns of wind direction in a given month are
fairly consistent from year to year, it might be interesting to look both at
the wind speeds and the GC speeds for clockwise vs. counterclockwise Tours,
to see if there is any discernable relationship. Sheesh, this could turn
into a dissertation!

What is clear is that the GC speeds and the Tour lengths _have_ in fact
changed systematically over the period, and in opposite directions -- to the
point where it is very unlikely that the relationship between them is
entirely random. The tricky part is to find a good physical reason why
longer Tours should result in lower GC winner speeds, the principal argument
being that longer Tours are simply more tiring, so the pace has to slide
back a bit to accomodate.

Someone likened the Tour de France to running a marathon every day for
twenty days. If it were 1.2 marathons a day for twenty days you might expect
the overall speed to be a little lower -- or would you?

-- AMG

"never_doped" wrote in message
...
This is just impossible to quantify in any way. Shorter tour doesn't
mean anything because other variables like attacks, wind, inclines,
strategies, rest days have much more to do with it. There is nothing you
can add or take away from the doping argument based on tour speeds,
there are way too many factors and any guesses are too prone to be
affected by lack of data and randomness.

BTW: Anyone that watched the tour and understands time trialing knew
that this years race was over before the final TT. LA did not have to
push himself with his lead, rain tends to tighten the spread, the wind
off the coast their is predominately west to east, (which also
tightens the spread), relatively flat terrain lowers the spread also
and the radio communication allowed Lance the luxury of just keeping
Jan in range.

It was a boring place to put a time trial.

Hindsight is 20-20.

At the least radio communucation should not be allowed in a 'race of
truth'. Cycling (doped or not) has always been about pushing the limits
within each rider and not just riding defensively. I would like to see
the radio taken out altogether but TTs are a start.

Exactly. And riders should wear blinders too.
And all these fancy, new pedal systems and carbon forks
should be taken away as well.

-Ken