Will Armstrong confess??

Questions about bike hire abroad and everything light bike related. No off-topic chat please

Moderator: Moderator Team

Locked
basilic
Posts: 656
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2011 8:05 am
Location: Geneva, Switzerland

by basilic

ok, I do not see major disagreement, except details.

1. when the topic is not emotional, it's not a matter of shutting out evidence that does not agree with your beliefs; you can accept it and still maintain your belief. Look at the matter of negative tests by Armstrong. Based on circumstantial evidence (the pattern of riding, rumors in l'Equipe, the andreu testimony) you could have formed a 95% certainty that LA doped even in the early 2000s. Now you are told that LA has tested negative. Let's say the test is negative in 99% of clean riders, and positive in maybe 10% of (careful) riders who dope. Applying the Bayes theorem, you should still be 90% sure that LA dopes, even accounting for the negative. (and I'm not bringing in the manipulation of the testing system)

2. you seem to only trust a probability statement based on a statistical analysis (eg frequency of disease). So you are a frequentist. But others accept subjective probabilities (the bayesians). In the case of LA above, you do not have 1000 LA clones to base your beliefs on, you have to make a subjective assessment.

User avatar
swinter
Posts: 1227
Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2006 2:27 am
Location: Grosse Pointe, MI

by swinter

but Bayesians don't know anything about cognition. belief is not a product of statistical probability.
"I can't understand why people are frightened by new ideas. I'm frightened of old ones." -- John Cage

http://weightweenies.starbike.com/phpBB ... 928#126928

User avatar
djconnel
Posts: 7926
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2007 1:57 pm
Location: San Francisco, CA
Contact:

by djconnel

basilic wrote:ok, I do not see major disagreement, except details.

1. when the topic is not emotional, it's not a matter of shutting out evidence that does not agree with your beliefs; you can accept it and still maintain your belief. Look at the matter of negative tests by Armstrong. Based on circumstantial evidence (the pattern of riding, rumors in l'Equipe, the andreu testimony) you could have formed a 95% certainty that LA doped even in the early 2000s. Now you are told that LA has tested negative. Let's say the test is negative in 99% of clean riders, and positive in maybe 10% of (careful) riders who dope. Applying the Bayes theorem, you should still be 90% sure that LA dopes, even accounting for the negative. (and I'm not bringing in the manipulation of the testing system)

2. you seem to only trust a probability statement based on a statistical analysis (eg frequency of disease). So you are a frequentist. But others accept subjective probabilities (the bayesians). In the case of LA above, you do not have 1000 LA clones to base your beliefs on, you have to make a subjective assessment.


Excellent analysis. But I suspect an error.

Simplifying down for my own benefit:

before test results:
95% chance: Armstrong doped
5% chance: Armstrong clean

Additional information: Armstrong tested negative

Chances of various results before knowing test results:

(95% Armstrong doped) (10% testing negative if doped) = 9.5%
(95% Armstrong doped) (90% testing positive if doped) = 85.5%
(5% Armstrong clean) (99% testing negative if clean) = 4.95%
(5% Armstrong clean) (1% testing positive if clean) = 0.05%

These sum to 100%. But I now know the test results. I thus care only about the negative probabilities:

(95% Armstrong doped) (10% testing negative if doped) = 9.5%
(5% Armstrong clean) (99% testing negative if clean) = 4.95%

I thus get a revised 65.7% chance that Armstrong doped.

User avatar
HammerTime2
Posts: 5430
Joined: Thu May 04, 2006 4:43 pm
Location: Wherever there's a mountain beckoning to be climbed

by HammerTime2

If you are Bayesian, and believe basilic's data, and don''t make a calculation error, then the probability that Armstrong doped, given the negative doping test result, is 94.53% .

P(A|B) denotes probability of A given B.

The calculation is:
P(doped|negative test result)=
P(negative test result|doped)*P(prior belief he doped)/{P(negative test result|doped)*P(prior belief he doped)+P(negative test result|didn't dope)*P(prior belief not doped)}
= 0.9*0.95/{0.9*0.95+0.99*0.05}=0.9453=94.53% .


Optional Bonus Reading:
If you keep everything as is, but vary just P(negative test result|doped), then the resulting P(doped|negative test result) varies over the possible range of a low of 94.48% when P(negative test result|doped) = 100%, to a high of 100% when P(negative test result|doped) = 0% .

HillRPete
Posts: 2292
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2011 8:08 am
Location: Pedal Square

by HillRPete

That's all very cool and interesting, but he interviewed with cyclingnews now, I think we can close this book :mrgreen:

basilic
Posts: 656
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2011 8:05 am
Location: Geneva, Switzerland

by basilic

HT2 wins - and guys, you are all too nice to indulge me in this probabilistic stuff.
To revise beliefs in light of evidence, the Bayes theorem says this (and the theorem is true regardless of beliefs, even non-bayesians agree):
posterior odds = likelihood ratio * prior odds
So prior odds of doping = 0.95/0.05 = 19
Likelihood ratio of a negative test = 0.90/0.99 = 0.91
posterior odds= 17.3
posterior probability = odds/(1+odds) = 0.9453
(so I was wrong doing it without a calculator previously)

Now this says what a rational person would/should think, not how people actually think. I think this was swinter's point, fair enough.

But I think the point is evidence alone is not the final answer. When evidence is weak (such as a negative test), not changing you belief is quite correct. When evidence is stronger (such as a positive test, which in my example would have a LR of 0.10/0.01, or 10), it really depends where you start from.

HillRPete
Posts: 2292
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2011 8:08 am
Location: Pedal Square

by HillRPete

basilic wrote:But I think the point is evidence alone is not the final answer. When evidence is weak (such as a negative test), not changing you belief is quite correct. When evidence is stronger (such as a positive test, which in my example would have a LR of 0.10/0.01, or 10), it really depends where you start from.

Evidence belongs to the real world. Belief to the internet. Better not mix them.

User avatar
HammerTime2
Posts: 5430
Joined: Thu May 04, 2006 4:43 pm
Location: Wherever there's a mountain beckoning to be climbed

by HammerTime2

In "PRO" Cycling Discussion, ultyguy wrote:McQuaid calling in his IOC buddies for help against WADA.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/mcquaid-writes-to-ioc-members-for-support-after-spat-with-wada

I'm going to call on the rest of you corrupt bastards to help this corrupt bastard fend off WADA, ok?

Here is the UCI Press Release with referenced emails linked: Press release: UCI releases Fahey letters in response to WADA’s ‘blatant and aggressive’ untruths

User avatar
stella-azzurra
Posts: 5072
Joined: Mon Jan 23, 2006 6:35 am
Location: New York

by stella-azzurra

Right now Landis has a shot at riding pro
I never took drugs to improve my performance at any time. I will be willing to stick my finger into a polygraph test if anyone with big media pull wants to take issue. If you buy a signed poster now it will not be tarnished later. --Graeme Obree

User avatar
prendrefeu
Posts: 8609
Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2007 10:32 pm
Location: Los Feliz, Los Angeles, California
Contact:

by prendrefeu

I think it is perfectly fine to have a difference of opinion, if not altogether welcome.
However, that being said, I believe it is helpful to all participating that should a person carry a difference of opinion or perspective, they will also do their part by not reiterating a prior point of discussion in the same topic/thread that has already been covered ad nausea. Even if that conversation was not completely concluded, that it has been discussed to a point of circularity or impass means that it should be avoided in the current topic/thread/discussion in the future. Should a considerable amount of time pass, or the thread be covering an entirely new subject, then it is fine to bring in past arguments from a prior subject/topic to the current one.
Bringing a new thought or new perspective to the conversation is welcome.

Let's not regurgitate what has already been passed through our bowels.
Exp001 || Other projects in the works.

User avatar
Tinea Pedis
Posts: 8445
Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2009 6:08 am
Location: Geelong
Contact:

by Tinea Pedis

What a piece.

Bill normally grates a little too much, but this is stunning.

http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/890 ... d-question

User avatar
djconnel
Posts: 7926
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2007 1:57 pm
Location: San Francisco, CA
Contact:

by djconnel

Okay -- my math was correct, my reading was not. I thought you'd written a doped rider had a 10% chance of being negative. You'd actually written a 10% chance of being positive. Since it was many tests over which Armstrong was negative, 10% chance for accumulated positive may be realistic, but still seems a stretch. But then that's where UCI cooperation comes in.

User avatar
swinter
Posts: 1227
Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2006 2:27 am
Location: Grosse Pointe, MI

by swinter

In case people missed the Rasmussen press conference.

http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/blogs/blazin-saddles/rasmussen-blows-whistle-decade-dope-135249891.html

Guess what? He was never in Mexico.
"I can't understand why people are frightened by new ideas. I'm frightened of old ones." -- John Cage

http://weightweenies.starbike.com/phpBB ... 928#126928

User avatar
stella-azzurra
Posts: 5072
Joined: Mon Jan 23, 2006 6:35 am
Location: New York

by stella-azzurra

Old news about Rasmussen. Davide Cassani had seen him in Italy (having an affair?) when he said he was in Mexico.
I never took drugs to improve my performance at any time. I will be willing to stick my finger into a polygraph test if anyone with big media pull wants to take issue. If you buy a signed poster now it will not be tarnished later. --Graeme Obree

User avatar
swinter
Posts: 1227
Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2006 2:27 am
Location: Grosse Pointe, MI

by swinter

of course it's old news. (apparently, sarcasm and irony don't read well on the web.)

the point was that he came clean and did so with the Danish cycling authorities and in a news conference and not on Oprah.

note the comment toward the end of the story about Contador and Saxo Bank.
"I can't understand why people are frightened by new ideas. I'm frightened of old ones." -- John Cage

http://weightweenies.starbike.com/phpBB ... 928#126928

Locked