And yet, to this day, kip, Dan baxley, Kip's wife and kid on twitter all believe he didn't cheat
And yet, to this day, kip, Dan baxley, Kip's wife and kid on twitter all believe he didn't cheat
You think they believe him?
If you were at any of his races, as a family member, you'd have something to back it up, to show photos with a time stamp from your phone, or whatever.
No one, I mean no one that I know has ever intentionally covered their race number, race after race after race. If you believe that his family believes him then what would he tell them the reason was for having a hat on and looking down, hence covering his face (aren't dentist proud of their teeth and smiles?), while walking, with no race number shown and having a different outfit on with different shoes? Yeah, that adds up.
If my family asked me the above questions, what would I tell them? I felt that I might get a blister with the shoes that I started with, so I found a place on the course the night before and hid the shoes.
Of course he couldn't lay them on the side of the road as a fit squirrel might have hocked them for his animal rights walk. Stay with me now:)
So then he found a tree and buried them with leaves. Then of course all of the runners & spectators around saw him exit the course and run down the side of the road to get his change of shoes...all while in mid air mind you (Seinfeld).
He then sat down, changed them and did "what" with his other shoes? So not one person, either spectator or runner witnessed this 1 in million type of behavior in a marathon, not one, but he's telling the truth.
And...not one family member or friend has come forward to say that they gave him the shoes at mile so and so and stayed with him at the so and so hotel.
As I said before, any one who runs that pace at the Free Press or Crim or one of his odd 10k's, knows that you would not get lost, ever, let alone a grown man who somehow goes out of state alone on foreign courses mind you, but somehow turns into Rand McNally while running in unfamiliar territory.
My child is 13 and she can run. Although I wouldn't leave her alone, I would follow her on the Crim course and bet anyone she would follow the other runners and not get lost. So what's a grown man's excuse who has run it before?
I ran it when I was 15 and had no sense of direction and with less runners back then, how come I didn't get lost? Herb Lindsay took off and we all followed:)
It's your choice and your mind, but do you really believe your last sentence?
I talked with Dan Baxley, Kip's friend (is this guy a real person or Kip himself? Given Kip made up names to west wyoming finishers, one can never know for sure).
He came onto the original kip litton thread #1 in October or November 2010 and defended Kip with a potty mouth - you guys in on the kip litton thing at the very beginning may remember.I believe he stopped posting because when he had tried to respond on a forum thread, a letsrun trivia question popped up which he couldn't answer - you guys know - that question that comes up when someone replies on an outdated thread. Today, he still believes that because all the evidence is circumstantial and there were no witnesses, Kip is innocent and a victim. He states, "All I have seen is circumstantial evidence, none of which is ever corroborated by an actual witness. All of this evidence has alternate explanations besides Kip cheating. And no one has presented any credible reason as to what someone like him would have to gain from cheating, or why he would do so. So let's leave it at that."
How about instead we have a Halloween type costume race: 1st annual Letscheat for CF 5k. Every competitor dresses up like KL and cuts the course in different spots in the process setting a PR. One requirement is you must change gear at some point. Then all the proceeds can actually go to CF research. And like the Wyoming "race" someone can post the phony results online.
KL race wrote:
How about instead we have a Halloween type costume race: 1st annual Letscheat for CF 5k. Every competitor dresses up like KL and cuts the course in different spots in the process setting a PR. One requirement is you must change gear at some point. Then all the proceeds can actually go to CF research. And like the Wyoming "race" someone can post the phony results online.
Brilliant
Wow. This is starting to anger me. Before, I cared very little about the Kip Litton story and paid almost no attention to it but 100% know he cheated.Now there are deniers years after the fact?I wonder if it is reputation.com. It's almost laughable. The guy made up a full marathon and even created a website for it. How is that defensible?Lots of people have offered to watch him race - he's never done it - but now people are saying, he's racing in secret.
A five year old could make up more believable lies than that.
Everyone who doens't know the story, needs to read this
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/08/06/120806fa_fact_singer?currentPage=alland this:
http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=3863010Lastly, to "Reality in perspective". If you are a real person (i've pasted your post below), please tell Kip I'll pay $1000 for him to run a marathon in 2014 as long as he starts and runs an official 26.2 marathon and as long I am told what marathon it will be at least 14 days in advance and am allowed to walk/ride next to Kip and film the whole thing.
I'll pay an extra $1000 if he breaks 3:30.
Sounds like a good deal
In plain site wrote:
To the knuckleheads who keep mentioning that starting late in the races shows he cheated. You don't know very much about this case. It is fairly common knowledge that Kip's fund raising was based on the number of runners he passed in the race. If he didn't start as close to the back as he could, then he wouldn't pass as many runners. That's the only reason, plain and simple.
buffalo street runner wrote:
This is the fund raising for the CF charity, right? The charity that said in the New Yorker article that the Littons had only donated $20 to since 2004.
Where is all this money from these fund raising efforts?
Such an EXCELLENT question.
Yet, there is never... an... answer!
He claimed a "need" to start at the back, because "donations were being made according to how many people he passed". Not in one race, mind you, but race after race. That was the story.
Yet, after all those races - $20 donated? Hmmm...
You, sir, are truly a person of great integrity. I wish you, your family, all of your friends and especially Dr. Litton all of the happiness in the world. You truly deserve it!
Get 'em while they're hot!
Kip and these trolls (or kip) is pissing me off
How could Kip have nothing to hide - shit!!! he threatened to call the police and have Mark Singer taken away in handcuffs if he didn't leave his dental office!!!
Kip Litton Deniers:
Kip Litton
Lisa Litton, "outstanding attorney"
Dan Baxley, VP at OneEarth financial ?
I must say I was surprised to see that posts from the trolls and posers ruffled Mark Singer's and Scott Hubbard's feathers enough to cause them to post their 2 cents again.
Thanks for alerting me to this goes out to (name withheld).
Sorry ROJO, they aren't deniers. They are liars whether they are Kip himself or not.
The guy has no defense. I have run for years and have never seen such utter non-sense.
His child has nothing to do with it. His child is innocent and didn't cause this, he did so stop bring his kid up "reality in prospective"
I take running seriously and don't like when people take awards and glory away from someone who worked their a** off!
He accepted the interview with the New Yorker because he knew he wouldn't be pressed. Showing a picture of him walking on the shoulder of the road at Boston says what? A LOT!!!!!
I could cheat if I wanted to also and never be "actually" caught, it's really not that hard when you just deny, deny, deny the obvious.
Any innocent person would have come forward to explain, but he knows the average person will push him with tough questions and he'll bail.
Taking a wrong turn at the CRIM!!!!, now I've heard it all.
No it's NOT circumstantial. There no such thing as coincidence after coincidence after coincidence unless you're guilty. Butthead Baxter can explain his "mid air show change" with what? Where were the shoes? Who gave them to him? Credible reason?????? Wake up. It's all a bunch of trolls or possibly Kip or friends, who knows, who are coming up with stupid explanations....not alternate explanations. What a joke?
If Dan Baxley really exists, I just passed a log that's smarter than him!
"shoe change" for those who don't know
crimster wrote:
No it's NOT circumstantial. There no such thing as coincidence after coincidence after coincidence unless you're guilty. Butthead Baxter can explain his "mid air show change" with what? Where were the shoes? Who gave them to him? Credible reason?????? Wake up. It's all a bunch of trolls or possibly Kip or friends, who knows, who are coming up with stupid explanations....not alternate explanations. What a joke?
If Dan Baxley really exists, I just passed a log that's smarter than him!
Doesn't this Baxley Guy have an MBA from Northwestern Kellogg school of management? You'd think he'd have enough smarts to figure this out, right?
Reality in perspective wrote:
From the beginning Kip has been steadfast that he has nothing to hide and would talk to anyone about anything. His only condition was that it was not in a forum where people could remain anonymous.
How ironic is this statement in your rant?
You'd have a lot more credibility if you yourself manned up and posted your defense under your real name. A real friend would defend their friend with their real name, wouldn't they? Just saying.
no_credibility wrote:
Reality in perspective wrote:From the beginning Kip has been steadfast that he has nothing to hide and would talk to anyone about anything. His only condition was that it was not in a forum where people could remain anonymous.
How ironic is this statement in your rant?
You'd have a lot more credibility if you yourself manned up and posted your defense under your real name. A real friend would defend their friend with their real name, wouldn't they? Just saying.
Damn - The wording "where people are anonymous" is very similar to a post believed to be kip that was mentioned in the New Yorker article. The New Yorker article mentions a post (believed to be kip) saying something like the chances are virtually zero that he (kip) would respond on a message board to people who are anonymous