Please make this plot for me...

On May 14, 8:26*am, Brad Anders wrote:
Excellent job, my conclusion - there's no correlation because they're
all doping. Or, there's no correlation because the UCI "suspicion
index" is bull****. Pick your poison.

Also choice C - you can't make a donkey into a racehorse.
Probably all three have elements of truth. However, it doesn't
necessarily prove the suspicion index is bull****. It's a suspicion
index, not a conviction index. One might expect it to be noisy,
and also the correlation of blood doping with results to be not 1:1.

The interesting pieces of this comparison, I think, are that the
correlation is bad (so it's not like whoever does the most
grossly obvious blood packing is automatically in the top 10)
and that the bottom half of the peloton has a lot of zeroes,
which is either an artifact of how often they get tested, or
suggests they don't do as much complex blood
manipulation.

It would be a little more revealing to compare to UCI points
since a non-GC rider can have a good Tour, winning stages
etc, and still be somewhere in the middle on GC.

Fredmaster Ben

In article
,
Fredmaster of Brainerd wrote:

On May 14, 8:26Â*am, Brad Anders wrote:
Excellent job, my conclusion - there's no correlation because they're
all doping. Or, there's no correlation because the UCI "suspicion
index" is bull****. Pick your poison.

Also choice C - you can't make a donkey into a racehorse.
Probably all three have elements of truth. However, it doesn't
necessarily prove the suspicion index is bull****. It's a suspicion
index, not a conviction index. One might expect it to be noisy,
and also the correlation of blood doping with results to be not 1:1.

And therefore should never be published.

--
Old Fritz