"The Boston Marathon Was Fixed" thread.

ConspiracyTheorist wrote:

mob kerpletzki wrote:

So what did they say to Meb?

'Fix is in, ya just gotta run a 2:08'

'I gotta what???'

Kind of obvious they were hanging back with the slow American crew. Race directors probably told them that their appearance fees dictate they let an American win. So they hung out with them in case Meb DNF'd. When it was clear he was gonna hang on, they took off, caught him too quickly and then hovered 10s back and "died".

So they hung back, thinking Meb went out too hard and would fade at the end, then when they realised he wasn't going to fade, they tried to catch him and couldn't.

Honestly the best argument against this is if you wanted to fix the race why not fix the women's race so Shalane would have got the win that was hyped up for weeks in advance before the race?

Honestly, you're full of shit!!!! The race wasn't fixed and nobody went to the Africans and gave them a hint. I mean wow, talk about conspiracy theorist...moron!

Probably run again wrote:

Honestly the best argument against this is if you wanted to fix the race why not fix the women's race so Shalane would have got the win that was hyped up for weeks in advance before the race?

Women aren't as cooperative with these things.

And Shalane didn't run as well as Meb.

I'm not sure why this isn't getting through to you: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You are claiming something extraordinary, and you haven't provided evidence of any sort, let alone extraordinary evidence. All you have is conjecture, and you are mistaking that for evidence.

You're the one with the big theory; the burden of proof rests with you. And so far you've been unwilling or unable to shoulder that burden. Don't get so bent out of shape when everyone else points this out. Put up or shut up.

She ran a PR.

Star wrote:

Probably run again wrote:

Honestly the best argument against this is if you wanted to fix the race why not fix the women's race so Shalane would have got the win that was hyped up for weeks in advance before the race?

Women aren't as cooperative with these things.

And Shalane didn't run as well as Meb.

Well, if it was fixed, they didn't make it easy on Meb. He had to run a PR practically on his own. Wouldn't it have made more sense for the pack to run with Meb, then drop off one by one as the finish line neared? This "plan" was far too dependent on Meb being able to run a negative split PR in a solo effort.... on the Boston course of all places!!

By the way, I want to talk to the person who was in charge of ensuring perfect weather for this charade. He or she did a great job.

Idbxeb,

Agreed.

When did I claim I have evidence? It's so much easier to make yourself look good when you allow yourself to change the arguments that were made.

By the way, the race was absolutely extraordinary. It requires extraordinary explanations. I am still not convinced by everything that was written here. It could be, but I would have given that scenario a one in a million chance if you had asked me before the race. But you wouldn't stop for a second to think about it, would you?

OK, let's stop speculation on these boards! Oh wait...

holy sh!t

this thread is actually still going

Nobody can say, "we want this outcome". It rarely happens.

What if nobody was having a good day. Are we going to say that Arinciaga (sp?) was the winner at 2:11? That doesn't pass the BS test for anybody.

Some soft incentives. If an American takes off, let him go. If he finsishes ahead of you, great here is enough $ to make your payday > the published winning prize $of $150k

They sandbagged the first 30k. >1:32 downhill? Please...all of the top invited runners could do this in training. Then a 29:30 uphill 10k. That dropped most everybody. Mission accomplished. It looks like a race. But wait...he goes from 4:40/mile pace all of a sudden to 5:01. He doesn't blow up and run 6:00 pace. 5:01...just enough to hold his place. Why didn't he at least try to catch Meb. He would have blown up, but what the heck. Go big or go home.

Meb was struggling in the last 3-4km. He was a sitting duck and this guy was running 2:55/km or faster vs Meb 3:15. One more km and he would have blown by him....but no...

This race does not pass the sniff test. You have to delusional to believe this was an honest victory. Meb ran 2:08 at the age of 38 (another issue entirely) but he was not the best or most prepared athlete that day.

This is fairly well reasoned. All I can say is it is pretty strange. Especially with the good weather and the women's race showing it was a PR day.

Hate to break it to you buddy, but nobody is going to be showing you a cashed check. And if you think that means everything MUST HAVE BEEN above board then you have an extraordinary level of naivety.

troofiness wrote:

This race does not pass the sniff test. You have to delusional to believe this was an honest victory. Meb ran 2:08 at the age of 38 (another issue entirely) but he was not the best or most prepared athlete that day.

Indeed. And did you see the Quote of the Day on the homepage? Meb got a call from President Obama. This thing does deeper than any of us imagined.

I did not realize that you are an expert on East African culture.

You should read 'Running with the Kenyans.' It pretty much is all about the dollars, for it's the only way they can get out of extreme poverty. If they win one race they can basically retire back in Kenya, buy a house and some cows, and help others to do the same. This coming from the author who lived and train with these guys for over a year.

try your butt wrote:

I'm not sure why this isn't getting through to you: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You are claiming something extraordinary, and you haven't provided evidence of any sort, let alone extraordinary evidence. All you have is conjecture, and you are mistaking that for evidence.

You're the one with the big theory; the burden of proof rests with you. And so far you've been unwilling or unable to shoulder that burden. Don't get so bent out of shape when everyone else points this out. Put up or shut up.

The extradordinary evidence is that a 39 year old in Sketchers gapped an entire field of elite 2:04-2:05 marathoners by pulling away at a blistering 2:10 pace with a rabbit over the easy section of the course in pristine conditions.

Then while every other group is seemingly setting PR's and Records every single foreign male shit the bed and couldn't hang at a pace 5 min's slower than his PR....but somehow decided to drop some 2:06 pace 5k's over the really hilly section.

And the only explanation for the weirdest race in recent memory is that "well they were just dumb, what do these elite runners know anyways?"

This entire thread makes letrun.com look like shit. It should have been deleted immediately.

Some Things Should Be Obvious wrote:

Hate to break it to you buddy, but nobody is going to be showing you a cashed check. And if you think that means everything MUST HAVE BEEN above board then you have an extraordinary level of naivety.

Bro this is the court of law here. If you want to talk to this guy you cannot speculate about anything or express any views that are not 100% verfied with an acceptable p-value.

Some of you seem to live some pretty mundane lives. I can't imagine real life boring conversations with you.

"Hmm I think this ketchup tastes better"

....

"Wait, do you have data to prove it tastes better? You can't just say that as fact and walk away. You're full of shit. What an idiot, this guy, thinking he can express his opinion without data to back it up and proof that it indeed does taste better."

Some Things Should Be Obvious wrote:

Hate to break it to you buddy, but nobody is going to be showing you a cashed check. And if you think that means everything MUST HAVE BEEN above board then you have an extraordinary level of naivety.

None of you get it. People aren't demanding that you produce direct evidence of a conspiracy. What about producing circumstantial evidence? And, no, a mere conclusion ("this race was really unusual!") does not qualify as circumstantial evidence.

The Boston Marathon Truthers on here just keep recounting portions the race (sometimes inaccurately) and then blithely asserting that this NEVER happens. Well why don't you back it up with some comparative analysis? Because, as others have repeatedly pointed out, the results here appear inline with the last 10 to 15 Boston marathons. With the exception of the two races with 15-30mph tailwinds, a bunch of elite East African runners usually run well off their PRs, and the winning time is usually between 2:08 and 2:12. If anything, Monday's race was one of the faster Bostons overall.

And, as others have pointed out, gradual breakaways from the lead pack early in a marathon aren't that unusual. The examples even include two Olympic marathons--the men's 1972 marathon and the women's 1984 marathon. And those are breakaways that succeeded. What about all the early breakaways that we forget because, as usually happens, the runner who went out front by himself crashed or dropped out?

You Boston Marathon Truthers are making the extraordinary claim. If you can back it up with comparative evidence instead of bare conclusions, someone might take you seriously.