# Stage 9 Predictions and Chatter (spoilers)



## weltyed (Feb 6, 2004)

Pretty exciting stage yesterday. A break with some horespower was away for a while, but with two GC threats that had teammates, the rest were wise not to work. 

Today we roll into Milan for the final stage of the 2009 Giro d'Italia. Wait...What? It's not the final stage? But this is Milano. That's right, the Giro ends in Rome this year. Stage 9 will be a 10 lap circuit, for a total of 165k through the streets of Milan. It's pancake flat, so here's the street course:










No idea who will win here. All I know is there is a high probability for crashes, so the GC contenders will be smart to stay up front until the last lap. During he Tour Down Under Armstrong took off in a small break with only a few laps to go, but that was more for show than anything. A break may get away, and there could be a solo flyer, but money is on a bunch sprint. So I guess I go *Cavendish*. He needs the win, and Columbia would love to add to their stage total.

(btw, the horrilla crash is devastating. i had a relative in vancouver fall off a trail and die. the photos of horrillas rescue looked eerily like video i saw of the mountain crew airlifting bens body out of the chasm. i hope all is well for him. sounds pretty grave, though.)


----------



## moabbiker (Sep 11, 2002)

This stage is seemingly designed for Cavendish. He would have to really screw up to lose it.


----------



## alexb618 (Aug 24, 2006)

allan davis


----------



## RoadCyclingNZ (Mar 3, 2009)

alexb618 said:


> allan davis


Allan Davis? I would doubt it, did you see his Twitter update this morning?

"First time in my career I've had to poo my pants 4 times and vomit 5 times all in the last 100km and race the giro! Straight to ambulance! I am still in the game but, normally this passes fast, hopefully!"


----------



## alexb618 (Aug 24, 2006)

RoadCyclingNZ said:


> Allan Davis? I would doubt it, did you see his Twitter update this morning?
> 
> "First time in my career I've had to poo my pants 4 times and vomit 5 times all in the last 100km and race the giro! Straight to ambulance! I am still in the game but, normally this passes fast, hopefully!"



haha no, i dont read twitter


----------



## uzziefly (Jul 15, 2006)

RoadCyclingNZ said:


> Allan Davis? I would doubt it, did you see his Twitter update this morning?
> 
> "First time in my career I've had to poo my pants 4 times and vomit 5 times all in the last 100km and race the giro! Straight to ambulance! I am still in the game but, normally this passes fast, hopefully!"


I hate to imagine the QS mechanic's job. Ugh.


----------



## RoadCyclingNZ (Mar 3, 2009)

alexb618 said:


> haha no, i dont read twitter


Apparently Allan is feeling better today maybe you could be right after all Alexb618: "Good morning from milan, all good this morning so far."


----------



## LilGasPasser (Apr 28, 2008)

WTF?

The entire peloton stops in the middle of a race for a press conference? Is this normal in Italy?


----------



## moabbiker (Sep 11, 2002)

What's with the stopping in the middle? Anyone can translate?


----------



## fracisco (Apr 25, 2002)

I read on the cyclingnews.com live feed that the entire stage is neutralized anyway. May as well cut the number of laps short and let the speed demons line up and go for a stage 'win'.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

De Luca said the course, and previous courses, are too dangerous.


----------



## moabbiker (Sep 11, 2002)

So they agreed on no breakaways?


----------



## muscleendurance (Jan 11, 2009)

yep, nothin to see here, move along now.

its all because of the 'bad' design of stage finishes over the last 4 days, and certainly not helped when horillo of rabo went flying off the road yesterday on a descent and nearled killed himself (he was in a coma) - also it took them 20 MINUTES to find the poor b*stard!


----------



## uzziefly (Jul 15, 2006)

It's a parade stage instead. Understandable but very disappointing alright.


----------



## weltyed (Feb 6, 2004)

phew. glad i went out and rode this morning rather than watch this. although i would have liked to have seen the "press conference." this gives "american style racing" criteriums a bad name. the entire stage was neutralized? were there no intermmediate sprints?


----------



## weltyed (Feb 6, 2004)

finally the last lap. so will it end in 10 minutes or 20? snoooozefest.
14k to go and everything is together. no time gaps today, so maybe we will see some attacks. finally. this is something cancellara would do well in, just motoring away.


----------



## weltyed (Feb 6, 2004)

well, that was a pretty dull stage. the group is coming in at about 12 mph.

at least there will be some excitement with the nba game 7s today.


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

*I dunno*

my guess is the Euro Peloton wouldn't enjoy the US Crit season
that parcourse didn't look that dangerous

others, yes. So I hope this is a protest over the overall situation


----------



## albert owen (Jul 7, 2008)

Moto GP from Le Mans was excellent


----------



## rocco (Apr 30, 2005)

atpjunkie said:


> my guess is the Euro Peloton wouldn't enjoy the US Crit season
> that parcourse didn't look that dangerous
> 
> others, yes. So I hope this is a protest over the overall situation



It's hard to see the road surfaces well online and on TV and I don't know if you've ever been to Milan but I can say from being there that it's probably a hairy place to ride a road bike at high speed. There are many sections paved with large interlocking granite blocks/pavers that are very smooth (by the standards of northern classics) but they are broad and much slicker than cement or asphalt. The asphalt sections are very dirty/oily because it's very much an industrial type of city. There are gnarly trolley tracks all over the place (I'm not sure how well they designed the course to avoid them). Many of the streets are narrow and the curbs are very high and made of square shaped granite with sharp edges (with no buffer). Add 25 turns per lap to that and yeah I could see why it's much more dangerous than even the nastiest US pro crit. circuit. Granted the surfaces in Milan are probably not all that different than around the Champs-Élysées but that course is consistently wider even at the turns.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

rocco said:


> It's hard to see the road surfaces well online and on TV and I don't know if you've ever been to Milan but I can say from being there that it's probably a hairy place to ride a road bike at high speed. There are many sections paved with large interlocking granite blocks/pavers that are very smooth (by the standards of northern classics) but they are broad and much slicker than cement or asphalt. The asphalt sections are very dirty/oily because it's very much an industrial type of city. There are gnarly trolley tracks all over the place (I'm not sure how well they designed the course to avoid them). Many of the streets are narrow and the curbs are very high and made of square shaped granite with sharp edges (with no buffer). Add 25 turns per lap to that and yeah I could see why it's much more dangerous than even the nastiest US pro crit. circuit. Granted the surfaces in Milan are probably not all that different than around the Champs-Élysées but that course is consistently wider even at the turns.



A buddy of mine was at the race today and sent me some text messages. He thought somethings was up but he wasn't aware of the protest until I told him, he assumed they were just riding slow .

He wrote that the course was very dangerous. They had to cross train tracks at full sprint speed in the run in to the finish. He said if it was a Cat 5 race here in the states nobody would have finished. I have ridden in Milan and the Champ's, Milan is way worse.


----------



## iamnotfilip (Jul 9, 2007)

I thought the wrestling for Cav's wheel in the last couple of hundred meeters was interesting, and amazed how long Cav went alone without anyone really giving him a challenge.

I wander if his manic swinging of the bike from side to side as he is laying the power down really disrupts the airflow of the guy who's in his slipstream, and downplays his advantage?


----------



## DM_ARCH (Feb 23, 2007)

Interesting stage for those who argued that dangerous courses are just a part of racing and those who complain are wusses.


----------



## CabDoctor (Jun 11, 2005)

DM_ARCH said:


> Interesting stage for those who argued that dangerous courses are just a part of racing and those who complain are wusses.


Exactly!


----------



## thechriswebb (Nov 21, 2008)

It's not that big of a deal. Everyone here is a cycling fan, and I like an exciting race as much as anyone else. On the other hand, I'm a recreational rider and not a pro racer, so I'm not going to condemn a decision that many very experienced professional racers in the Giro agreed to in the name of safety. If they were protesting their salaries being too low or something ridiculous like that, then I would be angry. This has given me no legitimate reason to be upset with them. Therefore, I will respect their decision.


----------



## gh1 (Jun 7, 2008)

It appears that quite a bit of this is the leftovers of yesterdays race. That stage was not set up to break the pack apart yet the pack was going through streets and corners that looked about 10 feet wide. Seemed dangerous when the pack came through.

The parked cars today seemed like a very bad idea. Other than that there were many corners that were tighter than 90 degrees. Seemed like a recipe for disaster to me.


----------



## moonmoth (Nov 8, 2008)

atpjunkie said:


> my guess is the Euro Peloton wouldn't enjoy the US Crit season
> that parcourse didn't look that dangerous


Do US Crit course have cars coming the other way, like today in Milan? I have not seen that before in he US but I'm behind in my crit viewing.


----------



## JoelS (Aug 25, 2008)

I understand there are a lot of train type tracks running through the city for a rail system. Those could potentially be very dangerous at speed. Add in twists and turns and it really makes for a dangerous course. At least at the speeds that the Pro's race.

I have no issues with it at all.


----------



## RoadCyclingNZ (Mar 3, 2009)

I think we're going to hear more about this, based on the comments below. It seems pretty hard to give any penalties though since the whole peloton agreed!
-----

Race director Angelo Zomegnan is quoted on the official website of the Giro saying, "I do not share the riders' decision, while I did accept the request to neutralise today's stage. This latter decision was dictated by common sense, especially in light of what happened yesterday with Horrillo's fall."

"We met the riders half way by adjusting the route and removing any obstacles. I find the decision they took to be out of line. In my view this is an excusatio non petita, accusatio manifesta ("He who excuses himself, accuses himself", ed.) on someone's part. But over the next few hours we, too, will be making some decisions."

Today's controversy, coming on the day that was supposed to be the celebration of 100 years since the first Giro d'Italia started, is likely to be debated further with reports that Agostino Omini, honorary vice chairman of the Union Cycliste Internationale, referred to the incident as "a disgrace."


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

this stage did not belong in a grant tour. It was essentially a 100 mile crit (but with almost double the number of racers in a US domestic pro crit). Those who have been following racing for a long time know that riders have not had a strong voice and are often subjected to overly dangerous courses, or insanely hard ones. Good that the racers are asserting themselves. I'd bet if you did an analysis you'd find pro cyclists are among the most injured of any sport when it comes to broken bones, days lost to injury etc - they aren't wusses.


----------



## moabbiker (Sep 11, 2002)

Miami Herald wrote that race director Zomegnan staed "This circuit required explosive bursts. It required riders to get their butts up of the seats of their bikes, and some riders who are not so young anymore apparently don't feel like doing that," Zomegnan said. "Instead, it seems like their legs have become shorter and their tongues longer."

In particular, Zomegnan was talking specifically of Armstrong who appears to have been the godfather of this protest. Then again, I'm sure that was the plan for him to be the scapegoat of the peloton since if LA isn't invited to the Giro anymore he could care less.


----------



## rocco (Apr 30, 2005)

bigpinkt said:


> A buddy of mine was at the race today and sent me some text messages. He thought somethings was up but he wasn't aware of the protest until I told him, he assumed they were just riding slow .
> 
> He wrote that the course was very dangerous. They had to cross train tracks at full sprint speed in the run in to the finish. He said if it was a Cat 5 race here in the states nobody would have finished. I have ridden in Milan and the Champ's, Milan is way worse.


It think if I had to ride let alone race in Milan I'd have to use at least 24c tubulars inflated to 6 or 6.5 bar for some better traction. 

The most F'ed up crit circuit I ever did was in Chicago. The organizers apparently some how didn't coordinate with the city department of streets and sanitation because half of the course had recently been gone over with a big asphalt grinder in preparation for repaving (summer is also known as construction in Chicago). It was all rough and dirty/pebbly with about 2" wide grooving and then the were the gnarly steps up and down from the good surfaces where they hadn't stripped off the top layer... naturally where some of the turns where. Lots of very unhappy racers who had driven a long way to race... I hate crits.


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

Armstrong will go to the Tour of California next year instead of the Giro and will take most of the cycling media with him. The Giro will go back to what it was becoming for the last ten years - a regional race for Italians (look at the GC from 2007 and earlier).


----------



## bertoni (Jan 10, 2008)

stevesbike said:


> Armstrong will go to the Tour of California next year instead of the Giro and will take most of the cycling media with him. The Giro will go back to what it was becoming for the last ten years - a regional race for Italians (look at the GC from 2007 and earlier).


Having Armstrong there this year didn't help as far as coverage here; at least Versus had limited coverage of it last year. I would not put the TOC on the same level with the Giro just yet; Lance or no Lance.


----------



## moonmoth (Nov 8, 2008)

iamnotfilip said:


> I thought the wrestling for Cav's wheel in the last couple of hundred meeters was interesting, and amazed how long Cav went alone without anyone really giving him a challenge.


The Universal announcing team surmised that Petacchi took himself out of contention today because it would look wrong if he won, after his Maglia Rosa-wearing team captain told the world that the course was too difficult.


----------



## CabDoctor (Jun 11, 2005)

moabbiker said:


> Miami Herald wrote that race director Zomegnan staed "This circuit required explosive bursts. It required riders to get their butts up of the seats of their bikes, and some riders who are not so young anymore apparently don't feel like doing that," Zomegnan said. "Instead, it seems like their legs have become shorter and their tongues longer."
> 
> In particular, Zomegnan was talking specifically of Armstrong who appears to have been the godfather of this protest. Then again, I'm sure that was the plan for him to be the scapegoat of the peloton since if LA isn't invited to the Giro anymore he could care less.


Was Armstrong or Di Luca that actually started it? I can't find it listed and am curious.


----------



## JoelS (Aug 25, 2008)

moabbiker said:


> Miami Herald wrote that race director Zomegnan staed "This circuit required explosive bursts. It required riders to get their butts up of the seats of their bikes, and some riders who are not so young anymore apparently don't feel like doing that," Zomegnan said. "Instead, it seems like their legs have become shorter and their tongues longer."
> 
> In particular, Zomegnan was talking specifically of Armstrong who appears to have been the godfather of this protest. Then again, I'm sure that was the plan for him to be the scapegoat of the peloton since if LA isn't invited to the Giro anymore he could care less.


He (Zomegnan) is just pissed because the racers thought the course too dangerous and wouldn't fight it out in downtown Milan. It's his own fault for putting together a pretty stupid stage that just doesn't belong in an epic stage race like the Giro.


----------



## DM_ARCH (Feb 23, 2007)

I am not going to necessarily take sides on whether it was honorable or dishonorable to do what they did, but I appreciate that it shows the human-ess of them They seem superhuman and we assume they can handle anything, but really they feel fear and know limitations like all of us. Theirs thresholds just are much higher!

Horrillo could have died yesterday. Sometimes things like that remind us how vulnerable we are and weak our bodies are.


----------



## moabbiker (Sep 11, 2002)

CabDoctor said:


> Was Armstrong or Di Luca that actually started it? I can't find it listed and am curious.


From what I've read it was Armstrong that organized the drive. Of course, it was Di Luca who gave the speech but that's likely since he was in pink and speaks native Italian.


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

*I dunno*



bertoni said:


> Having Armstrong there this year didn't help as far as coverage here; at least Versus had limited coverage of it last year. I would not put the TOC on the same level with the Giro just yet; Lance or no Lance.


I have the race on multiple times a day on Universal. They are acting like OLN (now Versus) 6 years ago. CX races, MTB, Triatalons and multiple airings of the Giro

I'm quite happy


----------



## tkavan01 (Jun 24, 2004)

atpjunkie said:


> I have the race on multiple times a day on Universal. They are acting like OLN (now Versus) 6 years ago. CX races, MTB, Triatalons and multiple airings of the Giro
> 
> I'm quite happy


It is aweSome I like that they also show skiing... Today stage was a bummer but I can respect the riders reasons, hopefully they willmake
Up for it Tuesday... Parked cArs on the course? How hard is it to tow them? I used to have friends who lived in manyunk pa, parking your car anywhere on the course meant it was getting towed at 4Am the morning of...


----------



## uzziefly (Jul 15, 2006)

The neutralization was pushed for several reasons:

1)peole could cross the paths almost anywhere and there were no real barricades 

2)cars were parked all over the streets and were right out of corners and some were even moving in opposite directions. At racing speeds, it's almost a given someone would get taken out. 

3)train tracks at corners with racing speeds makes for a potentially big an nasty crash. 

4)if the organizers wanted a race, make it a shorter crit like in Paris. Close the area up. Barricade people off. Make it safer. The you get a race. 

Lance wasn't the only one who was against it. Mick Rogers, Levi and several others mentioned it too. 

Bad organization is to blame for the decision. Maybe this would cause them to review the course for better safety next year. 

Descending at 50mph through pitch dark tunnels is not racing but a hazard to lives. Several riders were left scared the past few stages. Allan Davis pooped his bibs! Ok maybe he was ill.


----------



## SilasCL (Jun 14, 2004)

DM_ARCH said:


> Interesting stage for those who argued that dangerous courses are just a part of racing and those who complain are wusses.


I don't remember Lance complaining before/after/or during this stage:

http://cyclingnews.com/road/2004/tour04/?id=results/stage3


----------



## Jesse D Smith (Jun 11, 2005)

*exactly*



JoelS said:


> He (Zomegnan) is just pissed because the racers thought the course too dangerous and wouldn't fight it out in downtown Milan. It's his own fault for putting together a pretty stupid stage that just doesn't belong in an epic stage race like the Giro.


Exactly. Armstrong wasn't alone, and it's up to senior riders to take responsibility for the safety of the entire peleton when race directors have failed. Apparently this race director thinks having skin and bones decorating the circuit surface is part of the jolly spectacle of bike racing. He got called on it and it hurt his pride to have his bad judgment called out. He screwed up, didn't think it was worth the rider's safety to admit to the mistake, and now he feels his "power" has been usurped. 
The race went on, the final lap's outcome was probably no different than it would have been if they raced the entire time. And to throw out a ridiculous claim that Armstrong didn't have the power or will to deal with the accelerations destroys the director's credibility. Armstrong has faired better than 90% of the peleton so far, so there's no evidence he can't keep up, and he has no history of crying about the efforts required. 
The fans got to see a sprint finish, and quality riders will safely live to ride the time trial, ensuring a true "spectacle" on Tuesday.


----------



## Jesse D Smith (Jun 11, 2005)

*selective memory*



atpjunkie said:


> they raced the final 2 laps
> if they can race 1 lap around the course, they can race 5.
> if the course was so dangerous they should have soft pedaled across the finish, instead they had a long lead out and bunch sprint. They were clocking 50 kph plus around the course for the final lap, sounds like they could handle all the 'danger' just fine.
> 
> the fact that they were able to race the finale negates their argument


This makes it sound like you don't understand the difference between a small group navigating that course and 200 riders squeezing and jockying for position under those conditions. 
If you can recall, only a small portion of the peleton "raced" the final lap, those who were willing to take the risks for the stage win. The rest hung back and kept a sane, safe pace. There's a big difference between a small group maneuvering around that course at full speed and an entire field taking risks.


----------



## DM_ARCH (Feb 23, 2007)

atpjunkie said:


> they raced the final 2 laps
> if they can race 1 lap around the course, they can race 5.
> if the course was so dangerous they should have soft pedaled across the finish, instead they had a long lead out and bunch sprint. They were clocking 50 kph plus around the course for the final lap, sounds like they could handle all the 'danger' just fine.
> 
> the fact that they were able to race the finale negates their argument


I believe that is very foolish logic. The more they race it the more chance they have of being injured. No one ever said it was un-ridable. They said it was dangerous. If it was that dangerous would you want to do that over and over? Would you want to risk your life 5 times in a day, or 2? That is not even considering the fact that this was a protest for safer conditions and the intent was to make 'a point'. 

Doesn't matter if they could have done 10 times injury free.
I think they made their point.


----------



## rogger (Aug 19, 2005)

bikesarethenewblack said:


> Fully agree. I've said it before and I will keep saying it. These calorie counting, mountain scouting, TT waiting, radio listening, power reading GC riders are killing the sport. Cycling is dynamic, it's calls for people and team to adjust on the fly and has it out. Time can be gained or lost anywhere. Let me ask this - show me someone who races Ghent that complained? Now let me ask you this, are you going to remove Ghent, are you going to remove Roubaix? Do all tour routes need to have barricades galore and steep downhills and narrow streets removed? This is why I watch tours only cause it's the race that is is currently occurring. Give me Flanders any day of the week.


If by 'Ghent' you mean Ghent-Wevelgem, I'd say Jimmy Casper wasn't too happy before they changed the descend down the Kemmelberg...


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

bikesarethenewblack, you clearly know about half as much as you think you do when it comes to racing. The Giro has always had a problem with organization (it's Italy, after all) and the riders have complained about it forever - long transfers, crazy stages, poor control of the course. The Milan stage was a perfect example - the course was not controlled - there were cars parked all along it, oncoming traffic was on the course with no barriers, etc. My idea of a good race doesn't include a rider going down and getting run over by an oncoming car. The riders aren't trying to eliminate every risk from racing. The point is, there's enough risk inherent in the sport itself without the need of organizers to add to it through poor organization and cruddy course layouts.


----------



## Jesse D Smith (Jun 11, 2005)

bikesarethenewblack said:


> Your posts is fairly lacking.
> 
> 1. Time is not the only thing in a grand tour, true it's the only thing for GC, but this is why there are other jerseys. To me a fight for the sprinters jersey is just as good as any other.
> 
> ...


Yes, the sprinters deserve their playground, and they got it. As a matter of fact, the controlled laps neutralized breakaways, helping the sprinters. 
Cippo is not longer racing. He had nothing to lose, nothing to risk. He wasn't mixing it up in a pack of 200, so in this case, he's a non-factor. 
I will grant you the point that riders could have scouted out this particular stage. BUT, riders normally scout out mountain stages. It's impractical to scout out 20+ stage routes.


----------



## Cyclo-phile (Sep 22, 2005)

I feel that the riders made the right call. This is their job and a needless crash could end their season or career.

I work in an industrial environment where there are certain risks. On the other hand, I'm sure as hell not walking under a several thousand pound load suspended from a damaged strap or chain. Sure it might be fine, but it's also a lot more risky than standing to the side of a properly suspended load.

As racers they accept a certain amount of risk with the job. They also have an expectation that courses are designed with a certain acceptable threshold of risk.


----------



## rogger (Aug 19, 2005)

bikesarethenewblack said:


> Yup, that's what I mean. Backs up my point, too. Accidents happen, risks must be taken - that's bike racing. Here is what I don't want to see: a bunch of skinny guys looking at numbers. Ii mean, jeez, we're already well into the point where people are calling team doctors during a race to see if the attacking rider, who worked with said doctor, but now a new team/individual is paying more, and having said doctor run the numbers to see if the attack can stick. See 2000 tour for that example.
> 
> People crash at Roubaix - look Museeuw. They crash at the tour - look at Jalabert. They crash at big races and small races. Risks and crashes are part of bike racing. Some risks are more than others, it's not a tangible rating scale. Somehow, though, I doubt that this course was all that risky.
> 
> So, now, let me ask you - aside from posting a pic of an accident, what precisely is your point?


You asked for someone who complained about 'Ghent', I gave you one: Jimmy Casper. They made the right decision after that crash and changed the course, circumventing the cobbeld descend down the Kemmelberg. While cycling carries a certain inherent risk that is acceptable as part of the sport, it's just common sense to remove any obstacles from the course that pose too great a threat.


----------



## grrrah (Jul 22, 2005)

bikesarethenewblack said:


> Actually, you're wrong. By doing it once you take as much chance as doing it multiple times. That's the way stats work. This is why someone who rides 350 days a year can go without getting hit by a car and someone who rides 10 days a year can get hit (all else being equal). Every time you go out you take a risk, aggregate has nothing to do it.


I disagree, and you are illustrating your amount knowlegde pretty well. The leadouts and sprint occurred on the final 1/2 lap. Only those involved with the sprint or leadout went, and the rest stayed back safely. If it were are typical stage in a tour with a breakaway group, there would have been a lot more risk taking by the breakaway group to build a lead. The main pack would have been chasing it down for several laps, and the whole pack making the tight turns with traffic at 50km/hr would have been a lot worse!

I do think there could have been some intermediate sprints yesterday to add some excitement, even with a neutralized GC stage.



stevesbike said:


> bikesarethenewblack, you clearly know about half as much as you think you do when it comes to racing.


I have to agree.


----------



## AcesFull (Jun 10, 2003)

@bikesarethenewblack "By doing it once you take as much chance as doing it multiple times. That's the way stats work."

This comment should be preserved for the children. 

Perhaps it should be noted in the "Dunning-Kruger effect" wiki page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning-Kruger_effect


----------



## SilasCL (Jun 14, 2004)

bikesarethenewblack said:


> Well, Ace, what you said is in no way pithy and I suspect was lifted from another source, Because, Ace, I doubt you have it in you. Call it "intuition." With that said, like I'm a child, tell me how what I said is wrong, because, ACE, that is how stats work.
> 
> Replace ACE with whatever you like ; )


Let's say that the odds of a crash on any given lap are one in six. That means we can roll a die and in our little simulation, a 6 would mean a crash. If we do one lap, we roll the die once and it rolls a 4. Great, no crash. Now if the race has one lap at race speed, the experiment is over. If it has 10 laps, we need to roll the die 9 more times. Now, on each lap, the chances of a crash are still one in six, but it's pretty obvious that the chances of a crash are different depending on how many laps we do, right?

If you don't believe me, take out the nearest die, and roll it once, then roll it 10 times. Which set had more sixes? It's likely the set of 10.

Was that a simple enough explanation for a child?


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

bikesarethenewblack said:


> We are in dire need of education reform people, because clearly most of the people reading this - or responding to it - simply don't know stats.
> 
> No. You are wrong. Since you can't explain to a child let me explain it to you like an adult - gambling. If you have a 1 in 90 chance, roulette, you try and most likely nothing happens. Now, when you try again is it 1 or 89, no, it's not, it's 1 in 90. Most likely, you don't win. Now, this might be hard, but stay with me, if you try 90 times this does not mean you are going to win. I know it's hard, but the chances of you winning on try 90 is just as good/bad as on try 1. Nothing changes.
> 
> Now, do you get it, or do I need to keep schooling you.


jesus. 
Well on the plus side, I'd love to play dice with you.


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

bikesarethenewblack said:


> What does Jesus have to do with this? Nothing changes, I am correct, the only people who think something actually does change are the same fools who gamble thinking, well, luck has to be on my side - those are the same people who think try number 10 somehow magically means you're going to hit and is somehow whimsically is going to get there easier than try number one.
> 
> Class is over, anyone who fails to understand gets held back.


So help me out here. What is the probability that in two rolls with one die I will obtain one 6?


----------



## grrrah (Jul 22, 2005)

den bakker said:


> So help me out here. What is the probability that in two rolls with one die I will obtain one 6?


I know the answer, but your odds are even better that you would roll *a* six.


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

grrrah said:


> I know the answer, but your odds are even better that you would roll *a* six.


I had it originally phrased as "at least one six" , but agreed.


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

bikesarethenewblack said:


> X - come see me after class.


I really have better things to do than teach you basic statistics. 
Have a nice day.


----------



## SilasCL (Jun 14, 2004)

bikesarethenewblack said:


> We are in dire need of education reform people, because clearly most of the people reading this - or responding to it - simply don't know stats.
> 
> No. You are wrong. Since you can't explain to a child let me explain it to you like an adult - gambling. If you have a 1 in 90 chance, roulette, you try and most likely nothing happens. Now, when you try again is it 1 or 89, no, it's not, it's 1 in 90. Most likely, you don't win. Now, this might be hard, but stay with me, if you try 90 times this does not mean you are going to win. I know it's hard, but the chances of you winning on try 90 is just as good/bad as on try 1. Nothing changes.
> 
> Now, do you get it, or do I need to keep schooling you.


Well, each distinct event (roll of the die) has the same odds, I said just that.

Let's put it a different way, think about flipping a coin. Each coin flip is an independent event and has an even chance of being heads or tails. In our simulation, every time the coin comes up heads, that means you crash your bicycle into a parked car. Would you rather flip the coin once or 100 times?


----------



## coop (Jun 8, 2008)

Jesse D Smith said:


> This makes it sound like you don't understand the difference between a small group navigating that course and 200 riders squeezing and jockying for position under those conditions.
> If you can recall, only a small portion of the peleton "raced" the final lap, those who were willing to take the risks for the stage win. The rest hung back and kept a sane, safe pace. There's a big difference between a small group maneuvering around that course at full speed and an entire field taking risks.



The most obvious statement made thus far. Try to squeeze 190+ riders into tight corners on uneven surfaces with oncoming traffic and at high speed, something or someone doesn't make it out. The racing peloton for the last 2 laps was 50-60 riders at most and for the last k 1/2 was maybe 30. Much more manageable and safe. Agree or not the riders as a collective made a decision that they felt was in their best interest. I believe it's time to let it go.


----------



## SilasCL (Jun 14, 2004)

bikesarethenewblack said:


> You know, perception is reality - rove said that. I expect a little more, though. What I want and what is real are two distinct items. The point is, and this goes way back in my posts, is that by engaging in a behavior once it is no more statistical that it will occur once you do it again. Each time is as the same chance as before. That's the fact, maybe you argued it to get my goat - if so, mission accomplished, but the stats don't change. The fact is this isn't what are the chances of rolling a six in X tries - it's what are the chances on any given roll - the same goes for any time you engage in a behavior, in this case going for a ride or doing a lap.
> 
> I'm done, this is silly at this point, argue if you want, maybe I'll respond maybe not.


Okay, like in your original example, if 2 riders ride different amounts every year. One guy does 2 rides, the other 365. The next week they go and ride together, the chances of one getting a flat is the same as the other guy getting a flat. Makes sense so far, the chances of getting a flat on any single ride have nothing to do with your previous rides, just like rolling a die or flipping a coin.

Your original point is that the odds of crashing are the same on any lap. We'll ignore the fact that certain laps are different depending on what is happening in the race and say that your original theory is true, each lap holds a 1 in X chance of having a crash. This means that the odds of a crash are equal in each lap.

Now, going back to your original example, if the odds of getting a flat are the same on every training ride, let's say 1 in 10, then who would have more flats at the end of the year, the guy who does 365 rides or the guys who does 2? Which race would have more crashes, one with 1 lap or one with 10?

I'm interested in your response, as it will probably determine whether or not I put you on my ignore list.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

I think the notion that they're wimps is horrible! This isn't NASCAR!  

Unless you've been in a bad wreck or seen one, this is just e-toughness. At my last race, there was a bad wreck in the Cat 2-3 race and a rider dang near broke his neck. Last year, one particular crit was found to have a bad corner....and they fixed it. That's the way it should be. 

There's always a chance for a wreck in a race, well maybe not a TT, but there's absolutely no reason why unsafe conditions should be encouraged.


----------



## SilasCL (Jun 14, 2004)

bikesarethenewblack said:


> You say the past doesn't matter above, then below you say who has more flats in a given year of accrued riding which, by definition, must account for the past. This is where the logic falls apart. My point is in the first part of your statement - on that given day each rider has an equal chance of getting the flat. The only way of mitigating the risk is to not go for a ride on said day. One you engage in a ride, you opened yourself to a risk of a flat.
> 
> Personally, there is not a thing in this world I could ever possibly care less about than if you put me on your ignore list. I want to be perfectly clear, it in no way means anything to me one way or the other.
> 
> ...


It appears you care less about understanding basic probabilities, as you refuse to answer my questions.


----------



## tbgtbg (Mar 13, 2009)

I believe we want to think in terms of probability. The probability of an event equals the ratio of favorable outcomes (i.e. no crash for a lap) to the total number of outcomes (i.e. laps), provided all outcomes are equally likely. So, they did one lap without a crash, doesn't mean the next will be crash free. However, as more and more laps build up which are crash free, the higher the probability that future laps will also be crash free, all things being equal, and there is the issue. Fatigue will dull the reflexes further into the race, and because of this "human element" all outcomes are not equally likely as the race progresses, even if they were at the start. I think this is what the racers sensed. OK, statistics was not my strong point.


----------



## function (Jun 20, 2008)

bikesarethenewblack said:


> We are in dire need of education reform people, because clearly most of the people reading this - or responding to it - simply don't know stats.
> 
> No. You are wrong. waffle waffle blah blah
> 
> Now, do you get it, or do I need to keep schooling you.


ROFL Thanks for the laugh


----------



## DM_ARCH (Feb 23, 2007)

bikesarethenewblack said:


> Actually, you're wrong. By doing it once you take as much chance as doing it multiple times. That's the way stats work. This is why someone who rides 350 days a year can go without getting hit by a car and someone who rides 10 days a year can get hit (all else being equal). Every time you go out you take a risk, aggregate has nothing to do it.
> 
> The point I took from all this is that grand tour riders are a bore - it's been looking that way for a while, for a myriad of reasons, and this proves it. I guess it's time to go watch tour of flanders DVDs and old Roubaix where LeMond got fourth and his team won (and even that guy was a bore compared to the 70s and earlier).


That is true of mathematical probability. The statistical chance of something happening may stay constant, but whether someone wants to put themselves through that scenario over and over again continuing to take the risk is another thing.

Also, probability is not accounting for 'real life' race conditions. it does not account for a potentially changing environment (i.e. cars, people, animals). It does not account for fatigue and henceforth rider error. It does not account for dehydration and nutritional deficits that produce negative affects on riders coordination and performance.

But like I said, it was more about making a point. Maybe the course was very ridable but it doesn't mean that next time it will be.


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

*all it did*

was allow the guys without the stones to race the course only lose a few seconds to the guys who had the stones to race it.
Why couldn't they have soft pedaled and followed the 'race' at a safe distance for 5 laps? rhetorical: because they would have lost serious time on GC to a bunch of sprinters. that would have made the Giro interesting. Guys that would have 'wanted it' would have put a minute a lap into them. This was nothing more than the GC guys avoiding possible injury and limiting their potential time losses.

How about having a 'protest' day of piano pedaling over the dolomites so the sprinters could finish in the lead group? 
would never happen, hence the point.

Columbia had damn near their whole team including their GC guys setting Cavendish up.
Bravo to them. 

once again confirming real bike racing ends in April


----------



## uzziefly (Jul 15, 2006)

Buying one lottery ticket gives you a one in a million chances.

Buying 1 million tickets (assuming there are only 1 million tickets) ensures you'd win.

That is all.

If no one crashes on lap one, it also doesn't mean no one would not crash on lap 2.

It just makes, oh forget it. 

We have a math, statistic, racing god here anyway. 

By the way ATP, I wasn't referring to you bud. 

I highly suspect the protest was mainly due to Horrillo's unfortunate (wait, did I spell that poor lad's name right?) crash and injuries that ensued.


----------



## uzziefly (Jul 15, 2006)

Oh and, it's not just the GC riders:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/18/sp...tml?ref=sports

“It’s really lucky that there wasn’t a serious crash today,” said Tyler Farrar of Garmin-Slipstream, who finished third after other teams decided to make a race of it. “I think the race organizers sometimes just want to put on a big show and have that drama for TV. 
But next time, I really hope they consider our safety first.”

I'm sure it was in reference to the steep and dangerous descents and the Milan street circuit as well. 


Riders protesting about safety and they get so much stick.

F1 drivers protest about their safety too and what, do people say "It's part of racing. People die sometimes. So what?"

Safety is paramount and it's very understandable how the riders reacted, especially in light of Pedro's crash that could have killed him.


----------



## uzziefly (Jul 15, 2006)

bikesarethenewblack said:


> We are in dire need of education reform people, because clearly most of the people reading this - or responding to it - simply don't know stats.
> 
> No. You are wrong. Since you can't explain to a child let me explain it to you like an adult - gambling. If you have a 1 in 90 chance, roulette, you try and most likely nothing happens. Now, when you try again is it 1 or 89, no, it's not, it's 1 in 90. Most likely, you don't win. Now, this might be hard, but stay with me, if you try 90 times this does not mean you are going to win. I know it's hard, but the chances of you winning on try 90 is just as good/bad as on try 1. Nothing changes.
> 
> Now, do you get it, or do I need to keep schooling you.


Do your chances of winning the lottery increase if you buy 10 thousand tickets instead of 10?

Do your chances of winning from a breakaway increase if you have 7 riders in the break (10 min gap) with 3km left or does it increase with only 2 riders in the break instead? Same course, same time gap. 

Do your chances of crashing increase when 100 people ride in a line, or does it stay the same as when 3 people are in a paceline? As far as I know, in the paceline down a descent with 100 guys, when one guy crashes, there's a high chance that many others get taken down, and this could have a pile up effect. Of course, I'm not finished with school, am not a math or statistic expert, am not a racing guru, don't have the legs that can beat almost anyone on this forum, can't bench as much as many people here, don't ride as much as many here do, don't do as much statistics as much as many others do and neither do I know a lot so that's just based on what I think.


----------



## Ibashii (Oct 23, 2002)

This statistics argument is hilarious. 

When one goes about a statistical analysis, one takes a given--and, in this case, finite--quantity of data: If we analyse any given lap of a 5-lap bike race, ONE AT A TIME, and ignore mitigating factors such as temperature, rider fatigue, etc., the odds of a crash--or a course record, or a dog causing an accident, or an alien siting or anything else--stay constant across all five laps. True enough.

This is the position of the Loud Guy on this thread.

However, if we start with the data from all 5 laps as our data set--and, once again, suppress all mitigating factors--the odds off all possible things happening, regardless of their real number value as long it's greater than zero, increase by 5. That's a fact. There's no argument to be made about that.

Thus: Loud Guy is right, but only as long as we limit ourselves to viewing events as single events and not members of a finite series of events to be analyzed as a unit.

If we limited our statistical analysis in this way, we would erase about 1400 years of progress in the field, taking humanity back to the day when a very smart Indian guy named Brahmagupta made some very clever observations about the mathematical concept of zero as something more than a placeholder. Once we had zero we could begin to construct ratios--after all, before zero we had a very primitive sense of what came before 1 yet still had a positive value--and from ratios we could construct odds. As soon as we had odds, the concept of 'data set' was not far off...and voilà: the end of the usefulness of Loud Guy's statistical analysis in calculating the odds of anything during a 5-lap bike race.


----------

