Women runs 520 miles on treadmill in 7 days but doesn't get WR as Guinness says her witness doesn't count

I do enjoy the cheater/scam threads and take great delight in watching them move through predictable phases. My favourite phase is when the defenders of the liars turn up and start trolling the forum, while complaining elsewhere of trolls and haters attacking their hero. Call me perverse if you want but I just revel in the irony.

I'm just nipping out for some popcorn, looking forward to the torrent of hateful abuse when I get back.

Watcher of pseudo-experts wrote:

Obviously this thread is full of misinformation, when the head conspiracy theorists can't even get the TM type right (but only cares about personal experience with some irrelevant brand), and create some fantasy where it's impossible to service, as if reading a manual weren't the obvious thing to do.

Do you have some kind of reading and comprehension problems or is English not your first language? I ask because that is quite an extraordinary misunderstanding of what was said, reminiscent of the total failure to grasp what Strava is and what Power of 10 is earlier on.

This is fun wrote:

I do enjoy the cheater/scam threads and take great delight in watching them move through predictable phases. My favourite phase is when the defenders of the liars turn up and start trolling the forum, while complaining elsewhere of trolls and haters attacking their hero. Call me perverse if you want but I just revel in the irony.

I'm just nipping out for some popcorn, looking forward to the torrent of hateful abuse when I get back.

Even the LRC headline subliminally admits Amy was successful, saying that she DID run the 520 miles (actually 521) on a treadmill in 7 days, but ONLY that she didn't it officially recognized due to a discrepancy with witness accounting.

RE: Women runs 520 miles on treadmill in 7 days but doesn't get WR as Guinness says her witness doesn't count

Where is the documentation that was submitted to Guinness? Has this been made public?

Any gps data recorded on a Garmin or similar device and uploaded to Strava would be scrutinised in great detail and acknowledged as genuine if there were no discrepancies in it.

Fake data is rather easy to produce.

Almost as easy as beating "doping" tests, it's more of an intelligence test than anything else.

While you're here could you take a minute to explain how the mileage for Amy's world class 53.53 challenge was established? What equipment did you use to record the distance covered and where is the log of this stored?

One wonders why Dave would even bother answering. You can read the numerous contemporaneous press of her achievement (world record 53 marathons in 53 days) as she closed in on the record, and e.g. they say that she would start at a landmark and go for the planned 26 miles to another (sometimes a loop). You can just measure it all on Google Maps (tm) if you feel bad about it.

E.g.

Marathon #44 (Worcester)

She set off from the Dewdrop Inn in Lower Broadheath and completed a 26.1-mile circuit that passed landmarks including Worcester Cathedral, before finishing back at the Inn. ...

The docu is all there for those that want to find out.

Why bother recording? wrote:

Fake data is rather easy to produce.

OK, could you fake me a 2:35 London Marathon Garmin track for the 2018 race with mile splits, cadence and heart rate data please?

No one has body shamed from what I've read. Most think she's very attractive.

If they are open let's see the data from the 53 days of 26.2 mile training runs. She mapped her route and wore a watch right?

Don't know about the authenticity of their charity but filing public records seems like something legit charities are required to do. Has anyone received aid from them? And how much?

I don't think the standards were confusing. They could have paid for someone to verify.

Why bother recording? wrote:

Any gps data recorded on a Garmin or similar device and uploaded to Strava would be scrutinised in great detail and acknowledged as genuine if there were no discrepancies in it.

Fake data is rather easy to produce.

Almost as easy as beating "doping" tests, it's more of an intelligence test than anything else.

Well, Amy and Dave are as thick as pig sh1t so highly unlikely to be able to fake gps data if it is an intelligence test.

Upper Narrowtree wrote:

One wonders why Dave would even bother answering. You can read the numerous contemporaneous press of her achievement (world record 53 marathons in 53 days) as she closed in on the record, and e.g. they say that she would start at a landmark and go for the planned 26 miles to another (sometimes a loop). You can just measure it all on Google Maps (tm) if you feel bad about it.

This must win some kind of award for obtuseness - maybe Guinness have a world record for this?

ExpertKipWatcher wrote:

Why bother recording? wrote:

Fake data is rather easy to produce.

OK, could you fake me a 2:35 London Marathon Garmin track for the 2018 race with mile splits, cadence and heart rate data please?

How much are you willing to pay?

Why should they have to show you internet bullies anything at all? Amy's supporters know the truth and that's enough for us! Maybe instead of hating you should look at what she accomplished and be inspired to push yourselves that extra mile or two! I'll never understand why anonymous people online try to take something positive and make it negative. It's sad really.

Hunger G wrote:

How much are you willing to pay?

Nothing at all, when people make big claims of things being easy, they are no doubt willing to back up what they say, this is the internet after all.

Who's hating?Lets just see the data. Then it all goes away. Who wants a record without supplying proof?

Friend of 53 wrote:

Why should they have to show you internet bullies anything at all? Amy's supporters know the truth and that's enough for us! Maybe instead of hating you should look at what she accomplished and be inspired to push yourselves that extra mile or two! I'll never understand why anonymous people online try to take something positive and make it negative. It's sad really.

Friend of 53 wrote:

Why should they have to show you internet bullies anything at all?

They don't, but anyone who claims to have done something should be aware that if they want others to believe them, they must provide evidence. If people choose to not provide evidence that is entirely up to them and I would respect that as they would no doubt respect my reasoning.

ExpertKipWatcher wrote:

Why bother recording? wrote:

Fake data is rather easy to produce.

OK, could you fake me a 2:35 London Marathon Garmin track for the 2018 race with mile splits, cadence and heart rate data please?

This is another strawman. Obviously you can't fake data for the FUTURE, because it hasn't occurred yet. But it's trivially easy to fake 2:35 data for 2017, since the course, weather, etc., have already happened.

Furthermore, Amy is not a 2:35 marathoner by any means. She just runs FURTHER (endurance), not faster.

I choose to believe her. You choose not to. Everyone has a right to think what they want. I really doubt Amy cares what a bunch of anonymous jerks on the internet think about her.

You're accusing her of lying and cheating. Ever hear of innocent until proven guilty? Unless you can prove she made all this up (and you obviously can't), it's better you keep your mouths closed. Of course you all can say anything when you're anonymous and behind a keyboard.

Friend of 53 wrote:

I choose to believe her. You choose not to. Everyone has a right to think what they want. I really doubt Amy cares what a bunch of anonymous jerks on the internet think about her.

You're accusing her of lying and cheating. Ever hear of innocent until proven guilty? Unless you can prove she made all this up (and you obviously can't), it's better you keep your mouths closed. Of course you all can say anything when you're anonymous and behind a keyboard.

Hey, I found a cure for cancer.

I will not provide proof but do expect a nobel prize. Why? Because I told you I did it.

It's science man. Provide proof, evidence, data, etc.

I said earlier I'd believe her if they showed the 24-7 stream and mileage logs that outlined breaks, sleeping time, etc.

Ps. On another note, after all the positive media attention you should have changed the narrative to she will do it again. You could have used the media to drum up more cash.

Friend of 53 wrote:

Why should they have to show you internet bullies anything at all? Amy's supporters know the truth and that's enough for us! Maybe instead of hating you should look at what she accomplished and be inspired to push yourselves that extra mile or two! I'll never understand why anonymous people online try to take something positive and make it negative. It's sad really.

Amy's supporters don't know the truth, they just choose to believe her.

Some of us, know a thing or two about ultrarunning and running 520 miles is not that easy. So we don't believe the claim until we get proven otherwise.

GWR already declined and that is a very low bar when it comes to running.