Endurance.Net Ridecamp Archives

I have a little over 210,000 ride records ('96 through '06) in my 
computer now crunching. IMO that biggest issue with the RO nonsense is 
as Kim points out. For decent statistical analysis to categories - and 
this always comes down to some hypothesis test - the categories have to 
be independent. That is if you have categories X and Y, no one result 
can lie in X or Y depending on the phase of the moon or some other 
arbitrary criteria which is not constant. The second condition is 
simple, any one result has to lie in one of the categories that is the 
categories account for all possible outcomes.

Our codes consist of: Finish, Complete, RO, RO-L, RO-M, M, L, Overtime, 
DQ, surface factors. It looks like just looking a few preliminary runs, 
there are not enough SF or DQ to consider them as independent categories 
- that is they are down in the noise in providing information about the 
sport. I suspect but am not sure that we will see some modulation of the 
M and L categories when the RO-L and RO-M came into effect, which would 
result from the non independence.

If in fact the pull codes are to gather reliable information that can be 
used to estimate the population parameters for endurance, then IMO we 
have way too many codes. A reduced set of Finish, Complete, M, L, 
overtime RO and Other would work just fine and give you crisper results 
in your analysis.

It seems like our codes are somewhat like how Harry Truman described the 
camel - a horse designed by committee.

Sometime in the not to distance future my machine should be crunching 
and I should have some numbers.

Truman

FXLivestock@xxxxxxx wrote:
> In a message dated 6/20/2007 9:56:13 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, 
> heidi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx writes:
>
>     As Truman has already pointed out, most of the flak came from
>     having the pulled riders posted at all, not from having their pull
>     codes published. I am truly sorry for riders who feel that this is
>     some sort of a stigma, and have not gotten past that sort of ego
>     trip. (No, I amend that--I'm sorry for their horses.) Eliminating
>     publishing of the pull codes does not change the fact that the
>     riders who truly object don't seem to want their names published
>     at all.
>     Heidi
>
> But this discussion has not been about not listing pulled riders but 
> about pull codes being published. It is muddying the waters to tie the 
> two of these together. I certainly don't have a problem listing pulled 
> riders in results but am really against indivdual pull codes in 
> results and records.
> Look, I am about done with this topic. I have been vocal about this 
> for at least three or four years. I contend that accuracy is 
> compromised because of the way these codes are recorded. A lot of 
> energy is wasted between riders and vets and riders and ride managers. 
> I keep hearing claims that accuracy is so much better then in previous 
> years. I certainly do not see this. I keep hearing that riders 
> shouldn't care, yet I see time and time again riders justifying a pull 
> as RO, thereby putting "value" on these codes. We wouldn't have RO L 
> or RO M if riders didn't put "value" on this stuff. The reality is a 
> metabolic pull is a metabolic pulls and a rider shouldn't care if it 
> is listed as an RO M or an M but riders do...
> A lot of ride managers and vets agree with me on this topic. But if 
> the majority of members like this - keep the system we have. I just 
> know from my personal observations in the past and in the PRESENT that 
> many of the pull codes listed are not accurate and therefore the data 
> taken from this will also not be accurate. If the main purpose of pull 
> codes is peer pressure, punishment, etc. it is working just fine. But 
> if it is to collect accurate data, it is really a failure and will 
> continue to be a failure.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> See what's free at AOL.com 
> <http://www.aol.com?ncid=AOLAOF00020000000503>.


--

“It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how 
smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong” Richard 
Feynman, Nobel Laureate in Physics


=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Ridecamp is a service of Endurance Net, http://www.endurance.net.
Information, Policy, Disclaimer: http://www.endurance.net/Ridecamp
Subscribe/Unsubscribe http://www.endurance.net/ridecamp/logon.asp

Ride Long and Ride Safe!!

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=