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

I am confused by posts like this (i.e. "lack of photos isn't evidence that he cheated"). Here is the way that I understand evidence: if E is more likely to be true in a world where P is true than in a world where P is false, then E is evidence for P.

By this definition the lack of photos is evidence that Mike didn't run the race. This is because if Mike didn't run the race the lack of photos would be expected (like 50-90% chance?) whereas if Mike did run the race then the lack of photos would be very unlikely (like, well under 1%).

What definition of 'evidence' are people using whereby lack of photos on the course doesn't count as evidence that Mike didn't run?

(You want facts that can only be true if he cheated, such as photos of him on the freeway? But the lack of photos could only happen if he cheated, too. You want someone saying they saw him cheat? But if anything the chance of this happening assuming that he ran the race is higher than the chance of the photo evidence occurring assuming that he ran the race. Please help, I honestly want to understand this but I don't.)

mileage_man wrote:

By this definition the lack of photos is evidence that Mike didn't run the race. This is because if Mike didn't run the race the lack of photos would be expected (like 50-90% chance?) whereas if Mike did run the race then the lack of photos would be very unlikely (like, well under 1%).

The problem is this: If (hypothetically) the probability that any given runner is not photographed AT ALL is 1%, then 1 innocent runner would be getting disqualified per 100.

There is plenty of evidence to suggest he cheated.

There is no absolute proof.

So the RD will have to decide whether or not the large body of evidence is enough to conclude (within a reasonable doubt) that Mr. Rossi cheated.

But we have no way of knowing what threshold the RD will be using to rule on a DQ, so everyone here is wasting time speculating.

Except for that dude a couple of days ago who re-wrote Allentown. Man, that was gold.

runningbadger wrote:

Here

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=lehigh+marathon+waiver#

This was the bit helpfully provided that Mike was really interested in:

Driving Directions

Leg 5

Exchange #4 (Riverview Park, Lehigh Dr., Palmer Township, PA) to Finish (Scott Park, 91 Larry Holmes Dr., Easton, PA)

•From parking lot, turn left on Lehigh Dr.

•Turn left on 25th St.

•Turn right onto Freemansburg Ave.

•Slight right onto Butler St.

•Continue onto Wolf Ave.

•Continue onto Washington St.

•Turn left onto S 4th.

•Turn right on Ferry Street.

•Parking garage is on the left.

•Proceed on foot down 3rd St towards the Lehigh River and turn left on Larry Holmes Drive.

Probative of a DQ:

Only runner with no on course photos

No prior race results to support a 3:11

No reason for him to even go out at 3:11 pace

No public announcement of splits, race report, etc.

Refusal to turn over evidence that would dispose of matter

Probative of No DQ:

They did not DQ a guy who bodyslammed a dog at the finish line

Fortunately, the odds are much less than 1%. Some stats guys worked it out to be somewhere around 1/100,000 earlier. This was only considering the lack of photographs evidence.

Was the bridge checkpoint over water? Mike could have taken a wrong turn and ended up on the river. That would also explain why he looks like he was hit by a water balloon.

They do. wrote:

PredictorGal wrote:

- Chances are LVM does not have a policy in place for how to handle accusations of cheating

They do:

Ducks in a row wrote:

Part of the waiver Mike Rossi would have had to sign off on to enter the Lehigh Valley Marathon:

"I agree to abide by any and all rulings of event officials, even if such ruling results in my disqualification. I have read and understand the rules set forth by the USTAF pertaining to long distance running and agree to abide by them."

At this point, I'm sure they are just making sure all their ducks are in a row before they DQ him!

Maye I should have said that they may not have a policy on how to review accusations/performances such as photos, etc. and under what circumstances to DQ. The waiver just gives them a broad brush to decide whatever which is fine with me in this case. Ducks in a row works too.

Raysism wrote:

Probative of a DQ:

Only runner with no on course photos

No prior race results to support a 3:11

No reason for him to even go out at 3:11 pace

No public announcement of splits, race report, etc.

Refusal to turn over evidence that would dispose of matter

The first one is problematic, but I seem to recall reading something somewhere (maybe here?) about how race photographers wouldn't want to assume the responsibility of guaranteeing they capture everyone.

The others are all subjective.

I have no doubt in my mind that he did not run the full length of the course. I'm pretty sure anyone who has run a marathon feels the same way.

I just don't know if I was a RD whether or not there is enough to use the DQ hammer.

Thanks, Oxford Webster and others. I get the argument that the evidence isn't strong enough (although I think this thread does a pretty good job of destroying that argument). What I don't get is the posts that seem to argue that we don't actually have any evidence that he cheated, only a lack of evidence that he didn't cheat. Like dsb said for example,

I am certain that he cheated. Unfortunately a lack of evidence that he didn't cheat doesn't necessarily constitute evidence that he did.

I feel like I've heard this a bunch of times (mostly from Rossi supporters, unlike dsb), and I have no idea what it is supposed to mean. Maybe I'm reading too much into this and it's just another way of saying people don't think the evidence is very strong, but I was hoping someone would understand what was being claimed and could help clarify.

(Also, I agree that the odds of no pics is way less than 1% if he ran the race, let alone if you include other evidence. Didn't want to put a specific number on it so just said 'way less than 1%'. I also agree that 1% evidence wouldn't be strong enough.)

Haji wrote:

Over 2700 posts and 139 pages. Have we solved this one yet?

Pretty much yes. MR cheated and the only question is whether he is DQ'd or not and there is an investigation. Let's face it, if he actually ran 3:11 would he go into hiding, not release the GPS training logs, etc? Not a chance that he ran that race. None. Nada. Zilch.

Long-Armed Adidas Ninja wrote:

Raysism wrote:

Probative of a DQ:

Only runner with no on course photos

No prior race results to support a 3:11

No reason for him to even go out at 3:11 pace

No public announcement of splits, race report, etc.

Refusal to turn over evidence that would dispose of matter

The first one is problematic, but I seem to recall reading something somewhere (maybe here?) about how race photographers wouldn't want to assume the responsibility of guaranteeing they capture everyone.

The others are all subjective.

I have no doubt in my mind that he did not run the full length of the course. I'm pretty sure anyone who has run a marathon feels the same way.

I just don't know if I was a RD whether or not there is enough to use the DQ hammer.

First off, my post was for humor purposes. Thanks for cutting out the funny part.

Secondly, the photographers aren't assuming any responsibility. They took 40 to 50 pictures a second for a twenty minute period at the beginning of the race -- all you need is eyes and a brain and you can make up your own mind as to the possibility that a guy could slip through a 200 to 300 meter stretch of road without being photographed at approximately one frame per second.

Thirdly, subjective evidence can still be highly probative.

I may have missed this, but has anyone looked into talking to training partners or people he has run with in the past? Is he part of a club? Perhaps those people would know if the BQ time was an outlier.

Don't most people run with a group and have an idea what pace the guy can do?

It's heartwarming that all of MR's relatives are coming on here to defend the fact that he cheated. But come on, even Hal Higdon is freaking slamming the guy.

He cheated. And he threw an innocent principle under the bus. Karma is a bitch, he deserves everything he is getting, and he is getting the DQ.

I think it happens this week.

On this link

http://www.viamarathon.org/travel/race_day_transportation.php

it states: "Marathon & Half Marathon

New This Year at Runners Request!

Transportation will be provided BEFORE and AFTER the race. Runners have the option to park at the Start or Finish lines. Pre-Race shuttles will run in the morning from the Finish to the Start of the Marathon and Half Marathon. Post-Race Shuttles will be from the Finish Festival back to the Marathon and Half Marathon Starts."

I'm assuming that last year, buses ran pre-race from the finish to the start, and the "New This Year" part was a post-race ride from the finish to the start.

When registering for this year's race, they ask if you want to select the pre-race or post-race transportation option. I wonder if they asked last year if you wanted to take the bus pre-race. If MR did not select this option, and drove to the start, and then really ran the race, how did he get back to the start to get his car?

I think if MR did not select the bus to the start when he registered, it appears he planned to drive both ways.

cxguy wrote:

I may have missed this, but has anyone looked into talking to training partners or people he has run with in the past? Is he part of a club? Perhaps those people would know if the BQ time was an outlier.

Don't most people run with a group and have an idea what pace the guy can do?

Not when you average 15 miles per week split in to three or four runs.

Higdon posted AGAIN a few minutes ago...

https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=891753454204230&id=118381048208145

cxguy wrote:

I may have missed this, but has anyone looked into talking to training partners or people he has run with in the past? Is he part of a club? Perhaps those people would know if the BQ time was an outlier.

Don't most people run with a group and have an idea what pace the guy can do?

I don't run with a group but this guy is GAF!!!!

Plus, Higdon is getting pissed and he's about to turn the RW folks against this guy. Shijt just got real!

15 miles per week wrote:

cxguy wrote:

I may have missed this, but has anyone looked into talking to training partners or people he has run with in the past? Is he part of a club? Perhaps those people would know if the BQ time was an outlier.

Don't most people run with a group and have an idea what pace the guy can do?

Not when you average 15 miles per week split in to three or four runs.

Someone posted real early in the thread that he new him and words to the effect he was obnoxious and overbearing, etc and someone to avoid, so probably no, no and no.