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

GregTR wrote:

NowFindJimmyHoffa wrote:It would be really great if someone who had access to movie maker or other program could scan the photos in and stream them every half second or faster. That visual - and the lack of MR - would be pretty stunning. Saying "there are not pictures" is one thing. Showing what amoutns to a video of that pack without him in it is a whole other thing. Picture (or lack thereof) worth a thousand words, etc

There is more than one person with access to video editing software (including me). What I don't have is time to download every single photo and mess with it.

Nobody does, that's why it hasn't been done yet. Maybe we should crowdsource it. Pick one photographer location and set up a new page on the spreadsheet where everyone can sign up for a portion of the photos to download. Then we all upload them to a community dropbox account (or similar). I think a good location was identified several pages ago that had almost 1 photo per second. We just need someone to take on the task of setting up the spreadsheet and dropbox, because i dont wanna do it.

jury is in wrote:

Except for the fact that MR has lawyers. The LVM does not need the publicity of having dqed the guy and then lose a civil case later.

MR has a lawyer? Pics or it didn't happen.

Where is it listed in USATF race rules that the athlete must ensure that he is verifiably photographed during the event?

Adding requirements after the race is run would subject LVM to ridicule as well as litigation. No race director has the time or resources to deal with that.

Unless someone saw Rossi cheat or there is a photograph of him cheating then it can't be proved.

Did anyone check speeding records or red light cameras? He was probably nervous and may have gotten caught breaking traffic laws.

If Rossi provides irrefutable evidence that he didn't cheat then he may be able to sue Lets Run for allowing Anonymous Posters to defame him. The law only provides forums with indemnity if the posters identify themselves.

Please...He's not suing anybody--and has no irrefutable evidence that he didn't cheat..because it is my opinion that he cheated. He can't sue people for posting their opinions--especially since he is in the public eye (by his own doing with the letter)

Mostly facts and some theories have been posted here..with the logical conclusions that he cheated.

For the Via marathon decision, throw out all the other information from social media and other races. I doubt any other finishers/witnesses will have meaningful input.

The decision only hinges on how the photographers are viewed. Many on this thread have said that the lack of photos isn't compelling evidence. But in this case the photographers taking constant streams of pictures at multiple locations are de facto check points and probably better than timing mats that can be easily tricked (kip) and often fail. It's pretty clear there were no gaps in times around when MR should have crossed those check points. If you can show that none of the photographers took breaks around the time he should have hit check points, see the time stamps on the photos and show there's no way he could have not been captured, I think they DO have enough evidence and grounds to DQ him. And as far as well can tell this has already been done.

Raysism wrote:

A video is just a collection of pictures, so I guess if we had video of the photo checkpoints showing that Rossi didn't come through at any point, that wouldn't be enough for some people.

A video captures 30 frames per second; these photographers captured approximately 1 frame per second. This is not a statistically significant difference when you're talking about capturing a the movements of a human over 200+ meters.

It would just present the evidence in an easier to digest form for the people that don't want to click through hundreds of pictures.

Maybe more importantly, It would more easily show that there were not large enough gaps between consecutive photos that he could have slipped by unnoticed.

Race rules? wrote:

Where is it listed in USATF race rules that the athlete must ensure that he is verifiably photographed during the event?

If Rossi provides irrefutable evidence that he didn't cheat then he may be able to sue Lets Run for allowing Anonymous Posters to defame him. The law only provides forums with indemnity if the posters identify themselves.

The rules are that you have to run the whole course. If the directors investigate it and the evidence is strong that he didn't run the whole course, they can DQ him. The photos are evidence; nothing to do with rules on photographs.

I he had irrefutable evidence, he'd have put it out there long ago.

Deadman Running wrote:

Is there any proof that MR has lawyers ? Its not up to us to prove that MR does not have a lawyer, he needs to prove that he does. BTW he would never win a civil case over a DQ - the threshold evidence is much lower than beyond a reasonable doubt. Its a mere preponderance of the evidence.

What kind of question is that? One does not "have lawyers". One hires them. And anyone who has a bit of money and has the inclination can hire one.

"Unless someone saw Rossi cheat or there is a photograph of him cheating then it can't be proved."

Complete bull.

See that video of a track event in the upper right corner of your screen. I ran in that race. Unless you have a witness or photo of me somewhere else at the same time as that race occurred, you can't prove that I wasn't in it.

Oh, wait, the fact that I'm not in it is proof that I'm not in it, even though you have no idea where I was at the time.

The fact that he is not in the photos, which can be so closely linked as to render the intervals between photos meaningless is proof that he wasn't there.

And I'll roll the dice that any race director or jury would agree with me.

Nearly a photo per second with views that go over a hundred yards into the background on most photos, and he isn't there = he wasn't there.

Race rules? wrote:

Where is it listed in USATF race rules that the athlete must ensure that he is verifiably photographed during the event?

Adding requirements after the race is run would subject LVM to ridicule as well as litigation. No race director has the time or resources to deal with that.

Unless someone saw Rossi cheat or there is a photograph of him cheating then it can't be proved.

Did anyone check speeding records or red light cameras? He was probably nervous and may have gotten caught breaking traffic laws.

If Rossi provides irrefutable evidence that he didn't cheat then he may be able to sue Lets Run for allowing Anonymous Posters to defame him. The law only provides forums with indemnity if the posters identify themselves.

You're ridiculous... If Rossi had any kind of evidence that he didn't cheat, he would have provided it days ago, when the media was trying to interview him. Nothing is ever 100%. If that were the standard to be found guilty, then no criminal would EVER be convicted, no matter what the evidence. The evidence is so strong against Rossi that it would be an absolute joke if the race director doesn't DQ him.

You must think that OJ being found innocent was the correct verdict as well. After all, nobody videotaped his murders and, even if they had, I bet you'd argue that the video could have been doctored. Nobody who has followed this thread thinks that Rossi is innocent.

Maybe you don't have a lawyer, but I do. I have a lawyer, an accountant, a bookkeeper, an insurance agent, and I have employees. I even have a girlfriend, and I didn't even have to hire her. Are you new to the English language ?

All this talk about lawyers is comical. The only good a lawyer is going to do him is if there happened to be a lawyer on the route with a camera who snapped a photo of him running the race. Which there isn't because he didn't.

Trying to scare people with talk of lawyers is basically the only defense MR has left at this point. DQ is coming Mike..

Deadman Running wrote:

Maybe you don't have a lawyer, but I do. I have a lawyer, an accountant, a bookkeeper, an insurance agent, and I have employees. I even have a girlfriend, and I didn't even have to hire her. Are you new to the English language ?

So, you've decided to double down on stupid, huh? No problem.

The point of the post was that there is no reason to consider whether or not MR has lawyers since he can obviously hire a lawyer just like anybody else can. Of course, if you understood the English language that would have been obvious to you.

Is that you Mike? The RD can DQ him based on him not showing up in any race photos...

And you have decided to triple down, I see. First, MR has said he has lawyers. Second, I was responding to a post where the poster claimed that "MR has lawyers". And, I questioned whether he does or not. Yet, you decide to attack me for not considering whether MR has a lawyer or not, when that is exactly what I was doing. Nice troll job. Now FO.

Interesting how all the MR supporters are showing up all of a sudden on a Monday morning, isn't it ?

Agreed. If he had talked to "his lawyers" as he claimed last week, they would've told him to shut up and not talk to anyone, and turn over his evidence to the RD. Of course, he's the kind of guy who thinks he knows more than anyone, and wouldn't listen to anything "his lawyers" told him to do anyway. And he would then go on a random FB group and dig himself a deeper hole.So who knows. Doubtful he "has lawyers." But with nothing new on the horizon, we'll talk about lawyers for a while. Better than memes

Where's the DQ? wrote:

All this talk about lawyers is comical. The only good a lawyer is going to do him is if there happened to be a lawyer on the route with a camera who snapped a photo of him running the race. Which there isn't because he didn't.

Trying to scare people with talk of lawyers is basically the only defense MR has left at this point. DQ is coming Mike..

Hal is on it! wrote:

https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=891582320888010&id=118381048208145

Awesome.

Deadman Running wrote:

And you have decided to triple down, I see. First, MR has said he has lawyers. Second, I was responding to a post where the poster claimed that "MR has lawyers". And, I questioned whether he does or not. Yet, you decide to attack me for not considering whether MR has a lawyer or not, when that is exactly what I was doing. Nice troll job. Now FO.

Interesting how all the MR supporters are showing up all of a sudden on a Monday morning, isn't it ?

Sounding kind of desperate aren't you? Do you have something to hide other than your lack of grasp of the English language?