This thread was originally titled, "Incredible development in the $612,000 Transcon Goodge run, currently ongoing" but the new title is more descriptive. The description of the run is here.
Asterisk my a$$. There will be a large black mark next to his name. He didn't run a fuzzy unverified run because he preferred not to wear a tracker, he cheated blatantly and got called out. OJ Simpson might have been acquitted, but everyone knows perfectly well he is guilty. And, no, I am not conflating the seriousness of the two offenses. It's an analogy.
Not sure where you're getting this 1% from but whatever.
I haven't followed every twist and turn on this thread, so what's the current thinking in this echo chamber on their witnesses? They have witnesses, quite a few. Are they all in it, or are they being duped in some way?
Again, don't try to convince me. I'm very familiar with the arguments and I'm just an anonymous poster on this board, I'm irrelevant.
But try to look at this from an outsider's eyes. Goodge and company have people ready to come forward and put their reputation on the line to say this run is legitimate. You're countering with his mate's heart rate on a recent training run.
Let's hope they have eyewitnesses that can explain / validate the ~ 3 mile gap between the end of Day 15 and the start of Day 16. Something tells me they do. Call it a "hunch".
Well it wasn't a world record attempt but I can fill you in on a couple of stats.
Number of days he was witnessed running: all of them.
Number of days he was witnessed not running: zero.
Most days they're out there completely isolated with not a soul around. All deflection from you. And stop bringing the crew into it, crass and vulgar. And you're wrong about how many there were - just a vague, ill-informed guess. You keep saying stuff like you haven't followed this closely and yet you keep blasting away. You say there can't be impropriety because he was not alone. Massive deflection again. Young's crew did endless pieces to camera during it all. Does that make him innocent then? Rosie Ruiz had a very vocal defender. Oh! According to you must be innocent as well. Andi Rivett at Jogle? Very vocal defenders, although one turned out to be his stepbrother, although they hide this from the public.
The filmmakers are there to shoot media, that's their role - keep them out of it. And another guy - unemployed ex-military, living the life of a millionaire in NY... who knows what his story is - this ain't about him.
Just stick to the issues. All the community wants is answers, which yes, we may never get, but even if we don't it'll be darn hard for him to do these events ever again, which is a victory in itself. Issues are:
Falsely claiming a National record over an acclaimed broadcaster and member of Team GB, which is a barefaced lie. [But you just wave it through. They are ALL lying about this, and you know it. And yet you try to claim that the crew are blind to everything. Well? Why hasn't one of them spoken up if they're all whiter than white? But they know the moment they release a statement saying they are sorry they claimed that, there will be a huge row because they let the lie last so long and allowed so much of the media to cover it, which in turn pleased their sponsors, which in turn kept the money tap on, and may well have gotten him a bonus payment.]
Over 10,000k of super low heart rates that no-one can explain, by two runners at a handful of unobserved multiday events over four years, who clearly make a glorious living out of the sport. The media of the last 10 days shows how lucrative this all is. Simply eye-watering decadence and spending.
Outlandishly fast splits in the second half of days, despite PKs complete falsehood that they're ordinary, when they're anything but: ie. 5 miles in 45 mins after 50 miles in a day. Who the hell does that - and more importantly WHY?
No form or pedigree shown for multidaying whatsoever - his Jogle stats are a farce, and MDS return was dire.
Colossal mismatch between his Whoop and Strava, the former indicating around 65-75% of running. Maybe there's an explanation - what is it?
All we want is answers and for WG and RB to engage and explain. But all they ever do is block and abuse.
You can discount him, sure. But from Will C's own account there were I think 4 others in the crew, with cameras.
I'm simply asking the question, are they in on it, according to the collective wisdom of this board?
Rob Young. I recall people asking the same questions when he was being questioned. Don't try to claim having accomplices is implausible when it's actually happen in precisely this kind of event.
Well it wasn't a world record attempt but I can fill you in on a couple of stats.
Number of days he was witnessed running: all of them.
Number of days he was witnessed not running: zero.
I don’t think anyone’s suggested that he’s not doing a fair amount of running.
Exactly. He does look like he has slimmed down a bit and lost muscle on the run. In all probability he has logged a hell of a lot of genuine miles so of course he can find witnesses to say he has run.
This whole witness thing is a red herring. It was evidence that was required in the days before GPS, because it was the best we could do. Witness statements are worthless today because we have trackers! The only people that claim witness statements are a valid form of evidence, would be people that refuse to wear a tracker.
Jeepers. I asked a question. You gave me the answer, you think the crew do know he's cheating. I'm pretty sure I got the crew numbers from your now deleted FB messages but feel free to correct. I never expressed any opinion about the validity of their witnesses, but my point is they have them and other people will put weight by that. Saying it's crass to bring them into it is a very weak defense, but you point out there are precedents and that's actually pretty reasonable.
Perhaps you could point out where I "wave through" their record claim? I never mentioned it. It's clearly wrong, agreed.
I've also not once defended them or suggested I think it's legit, I'm just pointing out weaknesses in your argument. But you seem to think that any questioning makes me pro-Goodge and go off long rants rehashing what I've heard all before.
Again, my advice is to stick to your best arguments. For me that means the lack of a tracker and inconsistencies between Whoop and Strava. Can someone say more about the latter, what Whoop data is available? Actually that burst of pace you picked up on is also pretty strange.
On heart rates, yes there's clearly something there but you overplay it on several fronts. First, insisting on their accuracy. For one you are flat wrong. But more than that, you immediately lose anyone whose personal experience is that they aren't perfect. Like me or countless others. Second is you hone the data to your own narrative. I don't buy the idea they produced good data because you sent a letter. It was because they swapped monitor. Then there is no appreciable change in patterns in the days immediately before you arrive and when you are first there, it just suits you to say so.
But monitors aren't random number generators either. The best evidence of something odd is things like day 33. It looks like two distinctly different regimes, roughly between 20k to 60k and the rest. Same runner, same device, same day, this is indeed quite odd. My advice, which you will ignore, is to concentrate your argument on this. If you are trying to prove something about WG on the TransCon stick to that data, not him running something else, or his mate running something else.
By the way, you can download tcx and fit files by installing the Sauce for Strava Chrome extension. I'm going to have a look at some point but I don't hold much hope this will help. Everyone can see the HR variations, it's what causes them that's under dispute, I doubt having more detail will help.
Furthermore, this thread has reached the point where if he is observed running with "clean" data he's guilty, because he's forced not to cheat, or with "dirty" data he's guilty because he's changing it to cover his tracks. With that kind of logic I'm not really motivated to spend any time on it.
I've tried to point out how this investigation looks to those who aren't already on your side. I've failed. You seem to think you have sealed the argument, but just look at the FB joggle replies, or Goodge's Strava, or Outside. You've only convinced the convinced.
So up to you. You can reflect on what I've said, and dismiss it if you want. Or you can go into spasms of indignation and accuse me of saying all sorts of things I haven't.
But you seem to think that any questioning makes me pro-Goodge and go off long rants rehashing what I've heard all before.
. . . .
I've tried to point out how this investigation looks to those who aren't already on your side. I've failed. You seem to think you have sealed the argument, but just look at the FB joggle replies, or Goodge's Strava, or Outside. You've only convinced the convinced.
Denialism. This is such a frustrating thing about the dialogue in this thread. Folks are pointing out very reasonable critiques of the arguments presented and automatically get attacked for being "Team Goodge."
Jeepers. I asked a question. You gave me the answer, you think the crew do know he's cheating. I'm pretty sure I got the crew numbers from your now deleted FB messages but feel free to correct. I never expressed any opinion about the validity of their witnesses, but my point is they have them and other people will put weight by that. Saying it's crass to bring them into it is a very weak defense, but you point out there are precedents and that's actually pretty reasonable.
Perhaps you could point out where I "wave through" their record claim? I never mentioned it. It's clearly wrong, agreed.
I've also not once defended them or suggested I think it's legit, I'm just pointing out weaknesses in your argument. But you seem to think that any questioning makes me pro-Goodge and go off long rants rehashing what I've heard all before.
Again, my advice is to stick to your best arguments. For me that means the lack of a tracker and inconsistencies between Whoop and Strava. Can someone say more about the latter, what Whoop data is available? Actually that burst of pace you picked up on is also pretty strange.
On heart rates, yes there's clearly something there but you overplay it on several fronts. First, insisting on their accuracy. For one you are flat wrong. But more than that, you immediately lose anyone whose personal experience is that they aren't perfect. Like me or countless others. Second is you hone the data to your own narrative. I don't buy the idea they produced good data because you sent a letter. It was because they swapped monitor. Then there is no appreciable change in patterns in the days immediately before you arrive and when you are first there, it just suits you to say so.
But monitors aren't random number generators either. The best evidence of something odd is things like day 33. It looks like two distinctly different regimes, roughly between 20k to 60k and the rest. Same runner, same device, same day, this is indeed quite odd. My advice, which you will ignore, is to concentrate your argument on this. If you are trying to prove something about WG on the TransCon stick to that data, not him running something else, or his mate running something else.
By the way, you can download tcx and fit files by installing the Sauce for Strava Chrome extension. I'm going to have a look at some point but I don't hold much hope this will help. Everyone can see the HR variations, it's what causes them that's under dispute, I doubt having more detail will help.
Furthermore, this thread has reached the point where if he is observed running with "clean" data he's guilty, because he's forced not to cheat, or with "dirty" data he's guilty because he's changing it to cover his tracks. With that kind of logic I'm not really motivated to spend any time on it.
I've tried to point out how this investigation looks to those who aren't already on your side. I've failed. You seem to think you have sealed the argument, but just look at the FB joggle replies, or Goodge's Strava, or Outside. You've only convinced the convinced.
So up to you. You can reflect on what I've said, and dismiss it if you want. Or you can go into spasms of indignation and accuse me of saying all sorts of things I haven't.
Right, think I'm done here.
You say HR monitors are poor, but you don't say how bad they really are. That's the heart of this debate, pardon the pun. I took 100 major random runs from 20 major runners and they came back 100% clean. Not even close to a misfire. But you just say that is "flat wrong".
Quick: how many of PKs runs came back dirty at Transcon? None. Yes, some spiking but on the whole clean as a whistle. How many of Rakonczay's runs, the world leader in the last year come back dirty? What about Sorokin? Or Molinaro, the Jogle WR holder? Or Kimble, or Wardian, or Russ Cook across Africa, or Zhou's Transcon, or Annie Hughes, Ollie Garrod, Arlen Glick, Nick Coury, Robbie Britton, Tom Evans, Nick Bester, Jess Judd?
If HR monitors are so terrible, why do the likes of these all card a clean rate some 99%+ of the time? And Balenger in his race at the weekend? Boom, 170s.
And yet you just dismiss all this and say, like Huber and PK, "can't trust monitors, they don't work". It would help us all enormously if you could put a rough figure on how much you think these things fail to give a clean reading. I'll go for 1%. Yourself? But people never answer this question, because they know they can be instantly disproved.
We know WG and RB come back unclean around 90% of the time, that really isn't up for debate. But you say it's because of bad equipment. [For four years, 14,000k, two runners and six watches.]
Anyway, thank you for acknowledging his electrifying surges in pace are a worry. Don't really know why you're so drawn to day 33, about 43 days are just like that sort of stuff. Day 8 a classic early example.
My FB replies were actually more supportive than here, but I stopped posting there because people follow it for Jogle not this. Considering Huber had such a sarcastic, dismissive attitude to the investigation, I still came out on top and he acknowledged something is off. But alas he left absolutely loads on the cutting room floor, and when he asked about very specific details about the rock throwing, he ignored them and swayed the argument toward RB. And yes, alas he thinks HR monitors are unreliable and quoted PK's mistruth about WG being in the top 20 percentile.. Err, he's come home [2nd half] in the 6th quickest of all time! How the heck is that top 20% when about 1,000 have tried? This is the level of misdirection I've been up against. 6/1000 is the top 0.6%. But PK just dismisses the run as ordinary and that I'm vastly exaggerating.
And as for Strava, just fanboys pretty much all... "Awesome" "Insane" "Crushing it". But if you look at bit closer you'll see on day 8, Steve Turner asking: "Shouldn't your HR be going up, not dropping the further you go & climb?"
That's all I and others really ask. You say tech fail. A vast majority now disagree, but only independent professional analysis will settle things once and for all. And my belief is that that day will come.
Good too that you think it's wrong for them claim a record they haven't got. Ta.
This post was edited 3 minutes after it was posted.
Reason provided:
typo
Having followed some of this (who has the time to wade through the pages and pages of school boy level insults and pathetic digs at each other than most of this thread is) can I just say that willvlc, you are YET AGAIN missing the extremely reasonably put point of appropriatelanguage. The point is NOT THAT HE (or she, sorry not idea) IS SAYING HR TRACKERS ARE BAD. he's saying OTHER PEOPLE WILL/ARE SAYING THAT.
That there is something very dodgy about the whole run is clear, but if you want to convince people, insulting people, refusing to listen to really sensible advice, and spouting pretentious prose (which reminds me of your former Prime Minister) is not helping your case. Nor is insulting a journalist who has looked into it with more detail than probably any random member of the public will have. And yes, that's journalist, not scribe, because we are not in the changing rooms at Eton now.
Having followed some of this (who has the time to wade through the pages and pages of school boy level insults and pathetic digs at each other than most of this thread is) can I just say that willvlc, you are YET AGAIN missing the extremely reasonably put point of appropriatelanguage. The point is NOT THAT HE (or she, sorry not idea) IS SAYING HR TRACKERS ARE BAD. he's saying OTHER PEOPLE WILL/ARE SAYING THAT.
That there is something very dodgy about the whole run is clear, but if you want to convince people, insulting people, refusing to listen to really sensible advice, and spouting pretentious prose (which reminds me of your former Prime Minister) is not helping your case. Nor is insulting a journalist who has looked into it with more detail than probably any random member of the public will have. And yes, that's journalist, not scribe, because we are not in the changing rooms at Eton now.
Shellacking accepted! But 'approp lang' clearly says I am "flat wrong" to says HR monitors are accurate. And that countless others agree with him.
Of course I can see this may well be a stalemate in that regard and WG and RB have banked on just this for four years, and will continue to do so. Without a credible pulse and tracker one can claim whatever one likes. A 1:57 marathon or a 35 day Transcon...
Maybe these two will come back for a lot more in the future after all. What a wonderful way to make a living.
Glad you mentioned Russ. Ive been following him since the start at its so genuine. None of the WG nonsense. His earlier video today urinating says it all...the real deal. People should be in awe of his attempt, not the WG and RB sideshow.
Does anybody remember the police officer that was with the crew who came forward early on in the run? I remember him saying that the start and end points were marked when Will touched them every morning and evening but from what I've seen from the videos and stories they posted there was not one case of him doing this.
This is not evidence of any cheating but it is strange that he would come forward and use that as some sort of proof that there were no shortcuts being taken. Little lies from an eye witness.