February 23, 2006: Olympic Ladies' Competition: RESULTS AND ANALYSIS.
|February 23, 2006: The New York Times (link below) typed in the Short Program results from a FAX (!!), and had an in-house statistician complete the analysis (not presented on the web). They showed that (not surprisingly) the standings after the Short Program could have changed had a different panel been selected; Slutskaya placed ahead of Cohen in 128 of the possible 220 panels, according to the Times (and I confirmed this when the official scoring sheets became available).|
|February 20, 2006: Consensus of 12 judges
|February 17, 2006, 6:45 PM: John Berman at ABC explained it perfectly. Facts, no speculation. The ISU is right to stand by the rules at this point, and we'll hope for the best next week: a clear set of standings.|
|February 17, 2006, 2 AM EST: Consensus of 12 judges:|
|February 17. 2006: How close is "close"? When should we worry?|
|February 14, 2006: Unsettling Possibilities in Olympic Pairs Skating Results (with a happy ending)|
NY Times (February 23)|
ABC News (February 17)
Wall Street Journal Coverage (February 15).
Scientific American Coverage
Olympic results (detailed) from the ISU
Olympic figure skating results fresh from Torino
|The raw data! Want to do your own analysis? This is the place to start.|
|February 13, 2006: The Computer: A Phantom Figure Skating Judge|
|February 15, 2006: The U.S. Figure Skating Championships use 9 judges, counting all 9 scores. Judges' scores are not anonymous. My findings only apply to ISU competitions, not the USFSA. Thanks to Stephen Kawalko for pointing this out.|
|February 15, 2006: Recap: I'm showing,
objectively, the possible outcomes of the current scoring system
in close competitions. I can only speculate on the effectiveness
of the rules at discouraging people from cheating, but that misses
the point. There is a cost associated with the random
selection of judges: uncertainty in close competitions.
If you assume someone is trying to influence the results, it seems unlikely that the random selection of scores will pose a deterrent, and might make matters worse.