1
NATURE|Vol 441|11 May 2006 BRIEF COMMUNICATIONS ARISING E3 CORRIGENDUM Sporting contests: Seeing red? Putting sportswear into context C. Rowe, J. M. Harris, S. C. Roberts Nature 437, doi: 10.1038/nature04306 (2005) It has been drawn to our attention by David Matsumoto and Stephanie Hata that our first-round analysis of the Athens 2004 judo competition was biased by non-random allocation of blue judogis to a small number of seeded competitors. Although only 25 of 301 contests analysed are affected, the assumptions upon which those analyses were based were therefore incorrect. However, their reanalysis (D. M. and S. H., unpublished results), which excludes first-round matches, supports our conclusion that winning biases exist for male judo competitors wearing blue. Our interpretation of visibility-influenced winning biases therefore remains a valid and plausible alternative to that of Hill and Barton (R. A. Hill and R. A. Barton Nature 435, 293; 2005). doi:10.1038/nature04848

Corrigendum: Sporting contests: Seeing red? Putting sportswear into context

  • View
    216

  • Download
    0

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: Corrigendum: Sporting contests: Seeing red? Putting sportswear into context

NATURE|Vol 441|11 May 2006 BRIEF COMMUNICATIONS ARISING

E3

CORRIGENDUMSporting contests: Seeing red? Putting sportswearinto contextC. Rowe, J. M. Harris, S. C. RobertsNature 437, doi: 10.1038/nature04306 (2005)

It has been drawn to our attention by DavidMatsumoto and Stephanie Hata that our first-roundanalysis of the Athens 2004 judo competition wasbiased by non-random allocation of blue judogis to asmall number of seeded competitors. Although only25 of 301 contests analysed are affected, theassumptions upon which those analyses were basedwere therefore incorrect. However, their reanalysis(D. M. and S. H., unpublished results), whichexcludes first-round matches, supports ourconclusion that winning biases exist for male judocompetitors wearing blue. Our interpretation ofvisibility-influenced winning biases thereforeremains a valid and plausible alternative to that ofHill and Barton (R. A. Hill and R. A. Barton Nature435, 293; 2005).doi:10.1038/nature04848