Did Mike Rossi (viral marathon dad) cheat his way into Boston?

Wait Ken's secret reporter is his ex wife's mom?

Please confirm.

Ken has said some bad things about his ex here, so I just wanna point those out to his other mom.

Doubler wrote:

Not only would 'Ken Stillman advises me personally....' not be credible

"My ex son in law" advises me personally would even be less credible.

I think she just sent him off to do some busy work to keep him out of her hair. All she would have to do initially as a member of the press, is to contact Barb,and ask straight up who they contacted. It would take her less than 5 minutes if she cared about the story.

Whachutalkinabout, Doubler?

anomalous wrote:

Well, no. It's not anything like how an actual news story get written. Your version would only allow the"reporter" to be able to quote you, assuming that you are viewed as a reliable source of information (which I would say you aren't). So, the story would be:

"Ken Stillman advises me that he personally contacted 100 people by phone and email (or however many), people that Ken Stillman advises us ran the 2014 VIA marathon, and Ken Stillman advises us that all of them told him that none of them were ever contacted by the marathon to ask if they knew if Mike Rossi cheating cheated."

Great story, Ken. Great story. Yeah. Can see how that will take off and cause a lot of problems for the race organizers and Mike Rossi. Devastating stuff. Should be front page of most well respected newspapers for sure.

To which I would add one quick note to the lesson: as a general rule, the writer doesn't write the headline.

So allow me to do it for you:

FAT GUY JEALOUS OF OTHER GUY IN SUPER-TIGHT WHITE PANTS

[/quote]

"My ex son in law" advises me personally would even be less credible.

[/quote]

About once a day I tell myself "OK, you can check the thread one last time, but all you're going to see is more of the same stuff, nothing new, nothing interesting. So go ahead and check it one more time, and then when you see nothing new, don't check it again."

And then I check and see something like this. And I know I'll be checking back later for the update. . .

SeattleHobbyJogger wrote:

"My ex son in law" advises me personally would even be less credible.

About once a day I tell myself "OK, you can check the thread one last time, but all you're going to see is more of the same stuff, nothing new, nothing interesting. So go ahead and check it one more time, and then when you see nothing new, don't check it again."

And then I check and see something like this. And I know I'll be checking back later for the update. . .

Geez guys, do you know what an example is? No one is actually an ex-son-in-law here.

Seems like the worst decision may have been for Barb McKeever to take over from Bart Yasso

http://www.msgpromotions.com/new-director-management-for-lvhn-marathon-for-via/

Does Barb McKeever seem concerned at all for the integrity of the sport?

"Endth" ... it is just too easy.

"This isn't Watergate" ... tremble ... is this an indication that you are gaining perspective on this?

Don't let go of your self-delusions until you have something healthy to replace them with, NOT cheetos, confederate flag rallies, Nazi revisionists.

I fear for you Ken. Everyone on here is trying to detox you but will anyone be there for you when you get the shakes from trying to go normal.

ExpertKipWatcher wrote:

English is very much my first language and I repeat, 5K implies road.

You are definitely new here. (Or a lame troll.) Look here for several counter examples:

Whyamihere wrote:

So could he admit he cheated AND collect the 100k by running 3:11:45?

Hypothetically speaking, yes. But that would be lying.

Whyamihere wrote:

Because it's obvious he cheated.

Most people have realized quite some time ago that he didn't cheat.

Okay, so great. You have statements from runners that they have never been contacted. And you're doing what with that info?

If you aren't going to share that info then I just have to contact them again. This was all work that about 14 people were doing until SarahB decided to betray the trust of the people who let her into the group. You may have even used my spreadsheet of the 45 runners that Mike may have passed.

If I had this info I could have the story written within the next week. But, whatever. You seem to want to just withhold it out of spite.

When I explained to Doubler on Facebook how the process worked I didn't expect him to reveal my connections information. But, yes, my media connection is my ex-mother-in-law. My divorce was amicable and we are still close. She has been a reporter for over 40 years.

The problem right now with getting the story written is that there is absolutely NO PROOF that Barb has looked at a single photo or talk to a single runner. She has 100% plausible deniability that there is any proof out there. She has been bombarded with emails and Facebook posts, and she can simply claim she hasn't seen ANY of it.

So the first step in getting this story written is to GET HER THE PROOF. It must be delivered to her via a secured courier with a return receipt stating that she has it in her hands. Then she will have 72 hours to review the information. She doesn't have to open it or look at it. But when my MIL calls her for a statement regarding the article she can either comment on the evidence and explain why it's not enough to DQ Mike, or explain why she isn't looking at the evidence at all, when her original statement says she would.

Or she can choose not even to take the call.

Either way, as of now, NOBODY has any proof that Barb has ANY evidence whatsoever. You are all just assuming she has read your emails and Facebook posts.

THIS IS HOW THE STORY WILL GET WRITTEN. This is how real reporting gets done. A reporter needs proof that the person being accused of the wrongdoing actually knows what they are being accused of.

Is any of this unclear?

No Smartrunnr, we KNOW he cheated, all of us, and YOU know he cheated. If you don't...just wow.And if he runs sub 20:00, it doesn't prove he didn't cheat, you know why? Because he did cheat. If he runs another comparable time in the marathon does that prove he didn't cheat? No, because he did cheat. Though the latter will certainly never happen.Some of Rossi's friends have obviously registered, or at least the trolls have, case in point below: I can list the others, but they're obvious.

SmartRunnr wrote:

Whyamihere wrote:

Because it's obvious he cheated.

Most people have realized quite some time ago that he didn't cheat.

Hahahahahahha Barb McKeever has no idea what this sport means to us. Zero. Cheatin' Mike Rossi is her cash cow market and $ource for her livelihood. She has proven to be incompetent by not DQ'ing an obvious cheat. Do not hire her to run your event. Hire your grandmother.

Picture me TROLLIN wrote:

Seems like the worst decision may have been for Barb McKeever to take over from Bart Yasso

http://www.msgpromotions.com/new-director-management-for-lvhn-marathon-for-via/

Does Barb McKeever seem concerned at all for the integrity of the sport?

WWRD wrote:

No Smartrunnr, we KNOW he cheated, all of us, and YOU know he cheated. If you don't...just wow.

Oh come on. Here a reminder of the facts:

"there was no “conclusive evidence” that Montgomery County’s Mike Rossi cheated in that race, a race that qualified him for the Boston Marathon."

Don't feed the trolls.

Have you considered that any protest or reopening of any inquiry would likely have to be at request of a participating athlete or race official?

And any evidence would have to be new and conclusive.

The Brojos realize the official DQ is not gonna happen. So they have set a trap with 100k in bait.

The best thing to do is lay low and hope that the hunted's ego makes it irresistible. Beating the bushes and firing blanks into the air are not gonna catch him, just engender pity for him in the eyes of non-runners.

SmartRunnr wrote:

ExpertKipWatcher wrote:

English is very much my first language and I repeat, 5K implies road.

You are definitely new here. (Or a lame troll.) Look here for several counter examples:

http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=6667943

Whyamihere wrote:

So could he admit he cheated AND collect the 100k by running 3:11:45?

Hypothetically speaking, yes. But that would be lying.

Whyamihere wrote:

Because it's obvious he cheated.

Most people have realized quite some time ago that he didn't cheat.

Ha ha ... Funny!!!

People put up 100k all the time for people who most think is legit .... riiiigghhhtttt!

OMG, I love this place!!! MIL is media source!!! Go Ken. Bring them all down!!!

LMR wrote:

If you aren't going to share that info then I just have to contact them again. This was all work that about 14 people were doing until SarahB decided to betray the trust of the people who let her into the group. You may have even used my spreadsheet of the 45 runners that Mike may have passed.

If I had this info I could have the story written within the next week. But, whatever. You seem to want to just withhold it out of spite.

What are you talking about? I thought SaraB stopped posting because you scared her away.

The truth hurts Cheater Mike. Everyone here knows you are a cheat. But all you had to do was fool the incompetent Barb McKeever. That was genius. Still there's this:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marathon_course-cuttingMike wins!

Whyamihere wrote:

Ha ha ... Funny!!!

People put up 100k all the time for people who most think is legit .... riiiigghhhtttt!