Ex Phys Guy wrote:
In general, due diligence for a RD suggests that once you feel there is enough evidence for a DQ, you still allow for the fact that there might be evidence to the contrary and you have an obligation to make an honest effort to find that. As a race director, you have contact information for all athletes so you pull some names and numbers and call them. I'm guessing you are not an RD, and you may not agree that this needs to be done, but it is done.
Both the Lehigh RD and the Toronto guy they interviewed this was procedure. I even believe Higdon mentioned this is how they busted someone.
Here's what the Toronto guy said:
lan Brookes is director of the Canada Running Series, which oversees the Toronto Waterfront Marathon as well as high-profile races from Vancouver to Montreal. Brookes told Yahoo Canada that when the authenticity of a result is called into question, he relies on two confirmation methods: timing mats and photos. Timing mats are usually placed along the course to give runners split times, and to ensure they’re not cutting corners along the route (also called “cutting the course”). The Lehigh Valley course is point-to-point (a straight line from start to finish; it doesn’t go in a loop or out and back), so it doesn’t use timing mats along the course to verify times.
In the absence of timing mats, Brookes said a lack of photos isn’t a good sign.
“That’s a big problem,” he said.
Without timing and photographic proof, Brooke said, the onus shifts to the runner to prove they legitimately finished the race.
Which is what I suspect will happen, if the RD decides to DQ him.
No point in interviewing other runners.
Just DQ Mike, and shift the onus on him to prove he did run it.
But your point is well taken: I'm not a RD, so I am speculating here.
