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

dreamin wrote:

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.

The bridge location was deemed the best for this video. Has anyone made it over the weekend? Looking at how to set up a drop box for crowd sourcing purposes.

Rojo, does Letsrun have a drop box account that we could use?

What Kind wrote:

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?

Here is exactly what you said "One does not "have lawyers". One hires them". I responded that I do in fact "have a lawyer". English much ? I'm not going to sidetrack this thread any further with this nonsense. Go ahead. Have the last word. Everyone here can easily see who is desperate and stupid. Hint: Its not me.

Looks like Hal Higdon is faster than the brojos these days! Come on, where is that promised article?

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.

You're a bit confused about this. The lower threshold FAVORS Rossi, because he would be the one suing the RD for libel.

I never stated that I assumed Rossi was innocent. I suspect he is guilty but my suspicions are not based on anything presented here so far. The truth rat holes this thread has taken are ludicrous. It should be apparent to anyone who has run more than a few marathons how someone could have cheated. And the evidence is there.

This thread could be presented as evidence to support Rossi. Many posters are presenting assumptions as fact. This action reduces the legitimacy of the potentially viable assertions. There is a reason that insurance companies advise saying nothing if involved in an accident.

Regarding LVM, Mr Yasso stated something to the effect that the point to point course design would be difficult to cheat on. That means that the burden of proof for cheating is much higher than if Mr Yasso had not made that statement.

800 dude wrote:

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.

You\'re a bit confused about this. The lower threshold FAVORS Rossi, because he would be the one suing the RD for libel.

Not confused at all. In general, the lower threshold favors the plaintiff. But a simple preponderance of the evidence in this case would indicate that he did not run the race. So far, MR has no evidence, and the evidence against him is pretty compelling.

Race Rule? wrote:

[b}Regarding LVM, Mr Yasso stated something to the effect that the point to point course design would be difficult to cheat on. That means that the burden of proof for cheating is much higher than if Mr Yasso had not made that statement.

Absurd statement by a RD covering his butt. Any course with only mats at the start and finish is easy to cheat on. The point to point only means you need a car.

Deadman Running wrote:

What Kind wrote:

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

Here is exactly what you said "One does not "have lawyers". One hires them". I responded that I do in fact "have a lawyer". English much ? I'm not going to sidetrack this thread any further with this nonsense. Go ahead. Have the last word. Everyone here can easily see who is desperate and stupid. Hint: Its not me.

Well done lad. Well done. 3/10*

* points awarded for occasionally forming complete sentences.

My sources say a DQ is coming by the end of the week.

I'd like to hear a lawyers opinion on this, but it seems to me that examination of the photographic evidence could meet the preponderance of evidence bar for civil trials, much less a DQ call.

I like the comment, the rules don't apply to this guy - rules of road races, unexcused absence rule. Why aren't all the people defending him calling for him to take the offer of $10,000 + for charity to run a 3 hour 25 minute marathon? It should be easy for him.

Lenny Leonard wrote:

Hal is on it! wrote:https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=891582320888010&id=118381048208145

Awesome.

I highly doubt that those defending him are aware of the offer. They clearly aren't aware of the amount of evidence against him. I suspect that his defenders are mostly clueless non-runners and 6:00 hour+ marathoners, who sometimes aren't photographed in their races as the photographer packs up and moves to another location before they get there.

Deadman Running wrote:

800 dude wrote:

You're a bit confused about this. The lower threshold FAVORS Rossi, because he would be the one suing the RD for libel.

Not confused at all. In general, the lower threshold favors the plaintiff. But a simple preponderance of the evidence in this case would indicate that he did not run the race. So far, MR has no evidence, and the evidence against him is pretty compelling.

There's no "in general" about it. Lower standards of proof always favor the person asserting a cause of action.

Are you just saying that IN SPITE OF the lower standard of proof in civil cases he still wouldn't have a chance of winning? Because your previous statement seemed to suggest that the civil standard of proof made his case weaker as compared to higher standards of proof.

What Kind wrote:

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.

I had lawyers once. But my doctor prescribed a course of penicillin and it cleared right up.

gatorade&vodka wrote:

This, but also for RDs to make their races less laughably easy to cheat - both by adding mats and/or video and by looking through the results after the fact. It's Rossi's fault he cheated, but there's room to blame Lehigh too. If they had done their jobs and disqualified Rossi quietly they could have spared him the embarrassment, spared Internet posters from doing their work for them, and spared us all from having to hear about this whole "news" saga.

That's a great idea, let demand all races have mats every mile! That'll eliminate cheaters because it'll cost $1000 to enter just to pay for it all.

OMG do you have any idea how Tort law works?

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.

800 dude wrote:

Deadman Running wrote:

Not confused at all. In general, the lower threshold favors the plaintiff. But a simple preponderance of the evidence in this case would indicate that he did not run the race. So far, MR has no evidence, and the evidence against him is pretty compelling.

There's no "in general" about it. Lower standards of proof always favor the person asserting a cause of action.

Are you just saying that IN SPITE OF the lower standard of proof in civil cases he still wouldn't have a chance of winning? Because your previous statement seemed to suggest that the civil standard of proof made his case weaker as compared to higher standards of proof.

Dude - you are presuming that 'Deadman' understands English. NOT a safe assumption.

runningbadger wrote:

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.

[/quote]

Zeran v. America Online, Inc. is the seminal case on the issue. Ironically, the Communications Decency Act gives internet service providers (i.e. anyone who hosts a message board, chat room, comments section to a website, etc.) immunity from civil suit for third party content. This has been tested over and over in the courts and the result is always the same--no liability for ISPs for content posted by third parties. Does not matter if they ISP knows about and fails to take it down. Does not matter if the ISP fails to police posts. Does not matter if they take down some defamatory posts but not others. This has been tested repeatedly in the court all the way to posting child pornography. The legal rule is that the message board host is considered a "distributor" much like a book store or magazine at common law and not a "publisher", like NY Times, Harper Collins, etc. But it is codified in the CDA.

Letsrun would be responsible for any article written on the subject or for Wejo/Rojo and employees' posts on the message boards. But they are not responsible for anything anyone else posts on the message board.

that guy is a registered login wrote:

I highly doubt that those defending him are aware of the offer. They clearly aren't aware of the amount of evidence against him. I suspect that his defenders are mostly clueless non-runners and 6:00 hour+ marathoners, who sometimes aren't photographed in their races as the photographer packs up and moves to another location before they get there.

Nobody (except obvious trolls) is defending him.

Nobody here thinks he actually ran the full 26.2.

The only question is whether or not the RD has the cojones to DQ him.

And for that, we have no idea what the measuring stick is - so everyone here is engaged in blind speculation.