Re: So who's the lucky boy who got caught by the Pass****t ?

<joseph.santaniello@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
news:88e7ee6e-b497-4f97-9547-dab01646ddce@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 May 3, 4:17 pm, "Phil Holman" <piholmanc@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> <joseph.santanie...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>
>
news:68e5c91e-2268-4a98-a9ea-19d953e05a15@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On May 3, 3:14 am, Keith <nos...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > "Top rider under suspicion from pass****t
> >
data"http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2008/may08/may03news&from...
>
> > My money's on Valverde or Contador, these two would NEVER have 
> > gotten
> > off so lightly in Puerto if they hadn't been Spanish...
>
> "It is not unusual to have results of this kind, and there is no
> concern at this moment," McQuaid told the Associated Press.
>
> What does that mean? Unusal compared to what?
>
> Data are usually normally distributed. At the 99% confidence level, 1%
> will be statistically different (more than 2.5 standard deviations 
> from
> the norm). 23 out of 2172 is approx 1%.
>
> Phil H

It's 854, not 2172. So do they just ignore those 23 guys, or do they
nail them to the wall. Or do they toss a coin for each one?

It depends if you want a system that blindly follows the rules with a 
known probability of making errors or if you want to take into 
consideration a known percentage of riders who will be outside of 
certain limits. There is always going to be a compromise between false 
accusation and dopers going undetected.

Phil H