Roderick Powell wrote:
To getting there: I did preview post, but was not able to edit while in that mode....help!
True you cannot edit in preview mode, but it will show you if you need any edits. Then you go back and work on it some more then preview again.
Roderick Powell wrote:
Confuzzled wrote:
I guess it takes a while is right. I think we know the deal, Frank Meza confessing would be his smartest move at this point. His denials only make me want to throw more and more proof his way. I bet with all the videos on YouTube there are treasures yet revealed of his methodology. Funny how every time we catch he is re-entering courses. Thanks for pointing out my goof...
Rod - Before submitting your post you can do a preview, to make sure it looks like you want. Handy when trying to edit out parts of quoted post you don't want posted. The preview feature is to the right of the Submit Post.
Thanks...I just don’t get the objections to bringing his family into this. While I actually agree with that, I also disagree. Frank literally does a bib hand-off to His daughter-in-law. She completes a HM in which FM has already completed (before re-entering the course to run with his son and her). I didn’t include them in this...Frank Meza did. NOONE would no that they ran this event, possibly without paying...if pictures of FM running alongside his family had not appeared by fluke... I originally posted the Pasadena HM photos of FM... not knowing the dynamite info about the so-called “banditos”. (Francisco, Sara and Phillip) FM created that ultimate exposure. My position on that is simple, I would like a yes or no answer to a simple question. Did the so-called “banditos” pay to participate in the Pasadena HM. It is relevant, as I see it...because if FM seems to have an attitude of disrespect for these races. I just wonder if it is contagious. FM could start by explaining what passing his bib to Sara was all about.
To getting there: I did preview post, but was not able to edit while in that mode....help![/quote]
It appears that the internet is not the place for you.
It doesn't appear that the victims -- the runners' up -- at LAM seem too bent out of shape about this whole episode. But, I'd really like to read a piece from the prospective of a "victim" of cheating. The feeling of accomplishment and pride is felt most strongly after a strong performance is most felt immediately after the performance, and during the award ceremony. Finding out several weeks, months or years after the fact, and without fanfare, has to be pretty lousy.
Has MI or another publication fully explored this from the runners' up prospective?
In 99% of these situations, the runners' up busted their butts to get to the marathon starting line healthy enough and with solid fitness to place well. It's not an easy feat to accomplish with marathon training, especially at 70. You're often balancing life, family, nutrition, work and health to reach peak performance. This is all totally undercut by the cheater who comes in, doesn't do the work, and steals the glory.
Rappaport wrote:
Asking questions is fine. However, I've seen your pattern of posting on this thread. You need to take a step back and get some perspective.
Could you quote an example of where I am lacking in perspective ? I suspect that you are confusing me with other people.
ExpertKipWatcher wrote:
Rappaport wrote:
Asking questions is fine. However, I've seen your pattern of posting on this thread. You need to take a step back and get some perspective.
Could you quote an example of where I am lacking in perspective ? I suspect that you are confusing me with other people.
Start reading at page 1 and continue until you reach the end. Pay particular attention to your posts. Then ask me that question again.
I can't remember/find it, but wasn't someone trying to contact some of the news outlets to run a piece on this? This guy is an even bigger cheat, both in scale and duration, than Julie Miller or Kip, and they both had articles written about them in some major publications. The reporter who wrote about Julie Miller in the New York Times is Sarah Lyall:
https://www.nytimes.com/by/sarah-lyall
The reporter who wrote about Kip Litton in the New Yorker is Mark Singer:
ExpertKipWatcher wrote:
Rappaport wrote:
Asking questions is fine. However, I've seen your pattern of posting on this thread. You need to take a step back and get some perspective.
Could you quote an example of where I am lacking in perspective ? I suspect that you are confusing me with other people.
Why are we having LRC.com 101 classes so late in this thread, or at all?
Not even close wrote:
agreer wrote:
I think we can all agree that this thread and actions on other sites have gone way beyond just shaming.
Not even close. Frank has faced very little consequences, just some embarrassment. He made himself a public figure with his videos and comments. He took deliberate action to promote himself in a public forum. When confronted with the allegations he not only denied them but tried to obscure the fact that a world record age group performance was his goal. If not brought to light by these investigations, he would be attempting his next ‘world record’. When a gambler goes ‘all-in’, he has to accept the risk of being wiped out.
What consequences will satisfy you?
I thought a post from last week mentioned an LA Times sportswriter.
Speaking of Journalistic Pieces wrote:
I can't remember/find it, but wasn't someone trying to contact some of the news outlets to run a piece on this? This guy is an even bigger cheat, both in scale and duration, than Julie Miller or Kip, and they both had articles written about them in some major publications. The reporter who wrote about Julie Miller in the New York Times is Sarah Lyall:
https://www.nytimes.com/by/sarah-lyallThe reporter who wrote about Kip Litton in the New Yorker is Mark Singer:
https://www.newyorker.com/contributors/mark-singer
Not even close wrote:
agreer wrote:
I think we can all agree that this thread and actions on other sites have gone way beyond just shaming.
Not even close. Frank has faced very little consequences, just some embarrassment. He made himself a public figure with his videos and comments. He took deliberate action to promote himself in a public forum. When confronted with the allegations he not only denied them but tried to obscure the fact that a world record age group performance was his goal. If not brought to light by these investigations, he would be attempting his next ‘world record’. When a gambler goes ‘all-in’, he has to accept the risk of being wiped out.
You disagree with a statement made about the actions of accusers on this site and others by talking about actions of Frank? The statement that actions have gone way beyond just shaming are not impacted by whether or not Frank has faced significant consequences.
It's comprehension 101.
Roderick Powell wrote:
Thanks for the info. Interstingly, I never posted what you say I posted. You must have talent to connive that. I have actually yet to see your version of that .
WTF Mods!!! . All the crap that is posted in this thread and my posts trying help out a fellow LRCer with getting quoting formatted correctly in their posts are deleted?
Sure, let the cesspool posts stay up and constructive helpful posts get deleted. Should not be surprised, but...
Confuzzled wrote:
Roderick Powell wrote:
Thanks for the info. Interstingly, I never posted what you say I posted. You must have talent to connive that. I have actually yet to see your version of that .
WTF Mods!!! . All the crap that is posted in this thread and my posts trying help out a fellow LRCer with getting quoting formatted correctly in their posts are deleted?
Sure, let the cesspool posts stay up and constructive helpful posts get deleted. Should not be surprised, but...
They are all still there.
compreezy wrote:
Not even close wrote:
Not even close. Frank has faced very little consequences, just some embarrassment. He made himself a public figure with his videos and comments. He took deliberate action to promote himself in a public forum. When confronted with the allegations he not only denied them but tried to obscure the fact that a world record age group performance was his goal. If not brought to light by these investigations, he would be attempting his next ‘world record’. When a gambler goes ‘all-in’, he has to accept the risk of being wiped out.
You disagree with a statement made about the actions of accusers on this site and others by talking about actions of Frank? The statement that actions have gone way beyond just shaming are not impacted by whether or not Frank has faced significant consequences.
It's comprehension 101.
Oh contraire, this thread is all about actions and consequences. You can’t have unethical aspects in your character and then be indignant when someone questions the extent of that character flaw.
It’s compression 102, or did you sleep through that class also?
Ra wrote:
Start reading at page 1 and continue until you reach the end. Pay particular attention to your posts. Then ask me that question again.
I knew when I posed the question that you would not be able to
Lip Kitten wrote:
I thought a post from last week mentioned an LA Times sportswriter.
That would be Helene Elliott from the LA Times
Comprosey wrote:
compreezy wrote:
You disagree with a statement made about the actions of accusers on this site and others by talking about actions of Frank? The statement that actions have gone way beyond just shaming are not impacted by whether or not Frank has faced significant consequences.
It's comprehension 101.
Oh contraire, this thread is all about actions and consequences. You can’t have unethical aspects in your character and then be indignant when someone questions the extent of that character flaw.
It’s compression 102, or did you sleep through that class also?
Whether or not people "have gone beyond just shaming" is unrelated to any actions by Frank. It's simple logic. Apparently not simple enough for you.
It’s very complicated to me. I guy cheats for over 10 years, steals recognition for an accomplishment he did not attain. Then has people like you defending his actions. Is there some cheaters code or club that you guys adhere to? Like parlay for Pirates?
Comprosey wrote:
Oh contraire, this thread is all about actions and consequences. You can’t have unethical aspects in your character and then be indignant when someone questions the extent of that character flaw.
It’s compression 102, or did you sleep through that class also?
"Au contraire." I won't ask what you've slept through, and I'll refrain from speculating how far your character flaws extend beyond what's apparent in your post.
Comprosey wrote:
It’s very complicated to me. I guy cheats for over 10 years, steals recognition for an accomplishment he did not attain. Then has people like you defending his actions. Is there some cheaters code or club that you guys adhere to? Like parlay for Pirates?
Please point to where I have defended his actions. I am defending basic comprehension and logical arguments.
agreer wrote:
What consequences will satisfy you?
Good question Frank. At this point its too late to stop the train. Its rolling and picking up steam. Consequences are outside of your control.