theohiostate wrote:
Can't speak about Kauai, but I'll bet there's a plausible explanation.
OK then. Does anybody need to hear it or does he just keep it to himself?
theohiostate wrote:
Can't speak about Kauai, but I'll bet there's a plausible explanation.
OK then. Does anybody need to hear it or does he just keep it to himself?
As "the guy who wrote this" (and yes, took a fair amount of heat for it), since this is out there, I do want to be clear on one point:
I never accused Dean of cheating, or even used the word "cheat," in my blog post.
Instead, I posted a sequence of events that I observed, and a plausible (albeit unlikely) explanation for how these events might have occurred within the race rules. But ultimately, in my mind, it was just an anomaly of passing interest to a reader, but little consequence to the race.
That said, because the race-legal explanation of events was cast as unlikely, some people misinterpreted this to mean that Dean may have cheated, or definitely did cheat.
When this was brough to my attention about a month after the race, further discussion of these events, instead of clearing up a misunderstanding, only further muddied the water.
And so, in consideration of the fact that there was not complete, objective evidence that everybody could believe (i.e. photographic evidence of each step of the series of events, as opposed to just my word against his), I decided to remove that portion of the blog post, so that it could not be misinterpreted. This is not to say that my word isn't worth something (it is), but instead that I don't think that it's fair to put somebody in a "he said, she said" sort of situation, and that's what it was turning into.
As for this situation, with all of the information that's already been presented, I'm not sure what the race-legal explanation could be, as there appears to be little ambiguity in the evidence. But I would be interested to hear the explanation.
me boy, it was bollox then, and it's bollox now. your word's good with me and a whole big lot of other folks out there. I thought you wrote it fine then, and it's even more "interesting" now that this is out. in the end, how much does it matter? the 2nd place fellow at kauai knows where he truly finished, and likely that's all that matters to him. Dean can shove off and if he fails to moor up again, I've no problems with that.
hold your head high davey boy!
Karnazes' original manuscript for Ultramarathon Man is legendary at the publishing house (Tarcher Penguin of Penguin Group) at which it was received in 2004. It contained so many truth-stretchings and outright lies that it was initially deemed unacceptable by the legal team. The copyeditor, who had coincidentally attended a high school near San Clemente HS (Karnazes' school) at the same time, found extensive misrepresentations in the book's sections about Karnazes' HS running. A thorough fact-checking revealed blatant fabrications and bizarre exaggerations throughout. To allow the book to meet Penguin's standards, whole sections were removed or drastically modified, and (perhaps interesting to the poster who thinks that the author wrote the book unassisted) virtually no sentence from the original manuscript survives. Karnazes' success with the book is owed in large part to his editing team at Penguin, who worked very hard to save the book from being rejected as fraudulent.
the guy who wrote this wrote:
As "the guy who wrote this" (and yes, took a fair amount of heat for it), since this is out there, I do want to be clear on one point:
I never accused Dean of cheating, or even used the word "cheat," in my blog post.
Instead, I posted a sequence of events that I observed, and a plausible (albeit unlikely) explanation for how these events might have occurred within the race rules. But ultimately, in my mind, it was just an anomaly of passing interest to a reader, but little consequence to the race.
That said, because the race-legal explanation of events was cast as unlikely, some people misinterpreted this to mean that Dean may have cheated, or definitely did cheat.
When this was brough to my attention about a month after the race, further discussion of these events, instead of clearing up a misunderstanding, only further muddied the water.
And so, in consideration of the fact that there was not complete, objective evidence that everybody could believe (i.e. photographic evidence of each step of the series of events, as opposed to just my word against his), I decided to remove that portion of the blog post, so that it could not be misinterpreted. This is not to say that my word isn't worth something (it is), but instead that I don't think that it's fair to put somebody in a "he said, she said" sort of situation, and that's what it was turning into.
As for this situation, with all of the information that's already been presented, I'm not sure what the race-legal explanation could be, as there appears to be little ambiguity in the evidence. But I would be interested to hear the explanation.
See, this is why I love this site. Thank you for coming on here Dave and explaining things. I'd love to know (and you probably won't reveal) how much of removing the portion of the post was due to DK's "power" in the running community, both at Badwater and his fan base. As with others, I believe your explanation of what you saw and wrote to be correct.
I am going to take Dave's word on this too. I don't know if Dave accused Lance of cheating or asked for clarification. He is an honest guy who took a lot of heat for his observation. Dean's reply on the blog with the implied, "I am going to sue you" does not help his own case.
So after all the hoot and holler it turns out that DeanK actually ran 3:23!!!
He is the greatest!!! Long Live King K!!!
You'd think the starters (the ones who reported the missing start time) would have remembered the guy coming through 7 min late. Usually, they'll wait 5-10 minutes for any late starters and it'll take a few more minutes to clean up. Even if they were using the mats at the finish, they probably wouldn't have been in much of a hurry.
oiuoiu wrote:
You'd think the starters (the ones who reported the missing start time) would have remembered the guy coming through 7 min late. Usually, they'll wait 5-10 minutes for any late starters and it'll take a few more minutes to clean up. Even if they were using the mats at the finish, they probably wouldn't have been in much of a hurry.
How do they verify a runner's start if the RF chip malfunctions? backup camera? just assume that they were in the pack?
Luke B wrote:
I am going to take Dave's word on this too. I don't know if Dave accused Lance of cheating or asked for clarification. He is an honest guy who took a lot of heat for his observation. Dean's reply on the blog with the implied, "I am going to sue you" does not help his own case.
Who the f@ck is Lance??
This is typical liberal spin: successful people (who libs are typically jealous of) must be eradicated!
Lance bass won the lottery when a member of n syc quit and he was called in as a replacement. As a member of n sync he prolly made enough to retire and occasionally take on some acting or other projects for fun.
To add to the point about the timing mat: It seems like a short timeline for picking up the mat. The race starts, it takes 2-3 minutes for everybody to cross the line (including walkers at the back), and then, 2-3 minutes later, they pick up the timing mat?
Certainly possible, but, as another poster said, how did one of the timing people not notice a runner coming through late? And if this traffic re-routing did cause problems, wouldn't it be likely that at least a few other runners have come through late, as well? What happened to their results, since they also wouldn't have had a starting chip time?
Linsanity wrote:
Luke B wrote:I am going to take Dave's word on this too. I don't know if Dave accused Lance of cheating or asked for clarification. He is an honest guy who took a lot of heat for his observation. Dean's reply on the blog with the implied, "I am going to sue you" does not help his own case.
Who the f@ck is Lance??
Maybe it is a Freudian slip. The name Lance is so synonymous with bullying and cheating.
You'd also think someone would be thinking, "Where the hell is Deano? Oh, there he goes." Wasn't he the host or something of this shindig, didn't anyone try to get ahold of him race morning when he wasn't where he should have been?
And all the slow back of the pack runners, did they remember Deano whizzing by them 7 minutes after the gun?
I don't know much about the guy but maybe he thought starting late he would be more visible so more people would see him as he ran by them going 8:00 pace or whatever pace he ran.
What the heck? I clicked on this thread and all the sudden my browser window's full of Jergens and Kleenex ads.
drunk fool wrote:
I don't know much about the guy but maybe he thought starting late he would be more visible so more people would see him as he ran by them going 8:00 pace or whatever pace he ran.
Gotta be someone here that ran this race that can add something.