Frank Meza 2:53:10 at LA Marathon (70 years old) unofficial time (just finished)

“I don’t know what else I can do,” he says. "

I thought this was the funniest line in the article. It implies that he actually tried to do something to prove his innocence. You know, like provide GPS data. Or run anywhere, anytime with an observer. Or explain his CIM splits.

RossiCheated wrote:

I believe that issuing challenges to prove he can run suggests doubt on our part about whether he cheated.

There is no doubt. He cheated. Many, many times. The evidence is conclusive.

Please stop issuing challenges that suggest doing something now or in the future will cast doubt on whether he cheated in the past. He cheated. Period.

You are muddying your own water, which helps Frank not us.

Nonsense. It is simply highlighting what an innocent person would do.

Do you think the Brojo’s $100k challenge to M.R. was because they were unsure if he cheated or not?

RossiCheated wrote:

I believe that issuing challenges to prove he can run suggests doubt on our part about whether he cheated.

You are muddying your own water, which helps Frank not us.

I think you are missing the point, he claims that he has no way of proving a negative. We know this is crap but the uninformed reader might find this convincing as it is an old axiom.

Therefore suggesting a reasonable course of action that we know he has absolutely no chance of being able to do but is the bare minimum he would have to do to prove his potential seems like a way of heading this off.

To somehow think this negates or takes away from the indisputable evidence is as I say making a connection that just isn't there.

Recall that a certain person we must not name was issued 2 challenges that still exist on the main part of this website. I don't recall people getting their arses in their hands about that.

It kind of amazes me that he spent so much time and effort planning his routes, entrance and exit points, the split cheat sheets, bib belt, two watches, D-tag lanyards, etc. All that, but he isn't better at formulating his fibs. 9/10 for cheating skills. 1/10 for lying skills.

I humbly disagree. Central to the challenge idea is the word “if.”

“If you ran it, then do X.”

But we KNOW he didn’t run it. Therefore “if” does not exist. Any implication that there is an “if” suggests we don’t know.

Basically it suggests a case is open or ongoing. That is not the situation here. This case is closed regardless of what he ever does in his life.

WTF, more Frank obfuscation:

"I work in a big physicians’ practice, supervising 144 other doctors." as told to Amby Burfoot

"the retired physician" as told to David Wharton.

The following as told by 'Avocado's Number' (Page 178 with links):

Reposting for Loyola High School Head Coach Diaz just in case he's bit late getting to the thread today:

Hey Coach wrote:

Diaz old son, take a look at this: wrote:

Diaz old son, take a look at this and you'll see it:

https://imgur.com/a/qjBbUZy

"you look at Dr. Frank Meza, could this have happened? I don’t see it."

http://d35l3oybk21k7h.cloudfront.net/photos/photos/6277416_race_0.3399940168106095.display.jpg?1406592670

And these:

Diaz, what don't you understand? wrote:

Err Diaz... wrote:

“With them, he is guilty until proven innocent,” Diaz says. “The burden should be on them to say this is irrefutable, this is what you did and we caught you. Why is the burden on him?”

Err Diaz, have you checked out marathoninvestigation.com?

Diaz, this is saying "irrefutable":

“At this point,” Murphy says, “I have no doubt.”

Innocent till proven filthy, ha ha.

That photo of the current World Record Holder should have been in the LA Times article, even my old Granny would have been convinced he cheated if she'd seen that.

World Record Holder, my arse. wrote:

That photo of the current World Record Holder should have been in the LA Times article, even my old Granny would have been convinced he cheated if she'd seen that.

so is my aunt.

You may be onto something. The San Francisco Marathon shirt is from 2015. I just looked at the results from 2015 and the Loyola Coach you're referring to (the one who looks a lot like the bandit in the Pasadena photo) ran that race. And that person is not registered for the Pasadena race, so he was definitely banditting, if that's him. Does anybody else think it could be him? Maybe doubter should be look into this?

While it's easy to sometimes confuse the LRF with a court of law, it isn't (really). The objective at this point is to prevail in the court of public opinion. Most of the public find the concept of running 26 miles alien. Their is likely little appreciation for the world of difference between running '6:52 pace' and '6:00' pace, So the notion that someone might start off a marathon at the former (as Frank claims to have done for the first half of CIM), and then after 20 miles shift to the latter for the final 10k, might seem totally plausible (which of course it is not). For the general public, the notion that someone--over the course of 26 miles, might stop and stretch, go to the bathroom, have a sandwich or even take a little nap might seem totally reasonable.

For this audience, for which the detailed 'pace facts' are little understood, it may be more compelling to demonstrate that FM (or any runner of his alleged caliber), could put this whole issue to rest tomorrow, by simply getting some of 'the boys' to join him at the track and record a 5m tempo run at 6:20 pace.

We agree with you that such a test is unnecessary given overwhelming data demonstrating that FM did not and could not complete the LAM in the time he is claiming.

However, presenting this readily available option might help persuade the lay-public that FM must have cheated if he is unwilling to take up this very reasonable challenge.

Frank stated he wanted to run with his athletes in the 2016 Oakland Marathon as his reason for not taking up LA Maratho’s “offer” on running with an observer despite a five week time difference. The two other Loyola alums on the 2016 Cal Bears roster were an 800m runner and a pole vaulter. That’s another reason any athlete who did this in season could get the boot from a coach. The Loyola distance alum declined to be interviewed. Frank is a horrible liar and throws people under the bus in the process. Lalo Diaz is too loyal or stubborn to see this.

https://calbears.com/roster.aspx?roster=259&path=track#sidearm-m-roster

FrankMezaTrump wrote:

RossiCheated wrote:

I believe that issuing challenges to prove he can run suggests doubt on our part about whether he cheated.

There is no doubt. He cheated. Many, many times. The evidence is conclusive.

Please stop issuing challenges that suggest doing something now or in the future will cast doubt on whether he cheated in the past. He cheated. Period.

You are muddying your own water, which helps Frank not us.

You're right. Nevermind.

Agreed.

Frank Meza Report wrote:

Frank is a horrible liar and throws people under the bus in the process. Lalo Diaz is too loyal or stubborn to see this.

Perhaps Lalo Diaz has a false sense of loyalty which is clouding his judgement?

Or perhaps he's just plain stupid?

Perhaps Lalo Diaz has a false sense of loyalty which is clouding his judgement?

Or perhaps he's just plain stupid?

I don't know that I'd smack Coach Diaz down so hard. His coaching career is nothing short of legendary in California high school athletics. I don't know him personally, but I've seen Loyola kids run, and he's forged a hell of a program at Loyola. I suspect the former of your two options is true--he and Meza have been coaching Loyola kids for a long time. And if you take Robert Brandt, one of their former athletes at his word, Diaz cares deeply about his athletes. Brandt said

"It sounds cliche, but I've always considered great coaches to be ones that coach the person and not the athlete. I was always motivated to work hard for Coach Diaz because of the passion and interest that he had in me as a person. The Loyola program has historically been so successful because Coach Diaz instills great conviction and belief in his runners through his unwavering commitment to them as people. Running under coach Diaz was one of the most rewarding experiences of my life, and I think all former Loyola runners carry great pride in knowing that they were apart of something special."

Yet Brandt won't say boo about Meza in the LA Times article? I suspect that Diaz is concerned that everything he's built, and all the hard work he's put in to coaching great teams at Loyola, will be thrown on the trash heap of history and asterisked because of Meza's affiliation with the team. The school evidently feels that way, because they've scrubbed him from any mention on the school's website.

I think that Diaz and Meza are just old friends, and Diaz is sticking up for him. See how happy they look together here.

Unfortunately for Diaz, the evidence is overwhelming that Meza is a cheat, and if I was Diaz, I would be taking the same approach as Brandt. Say nothing. Then kick your old friend in the ass for what he's done and convince him to come clean for the sake of the kids, if not for the entire Loyola legacy.

What say you, Lalo? Will you instill "great conviction and belief" and an "unwavering commitment" to Frank Meza as a person, or will you realize that maybe you didn't know your old friend as well as you thought you did.

BTW, same question to you, Dr. Bland.

[quote]

Perhaps Lalo Diaz has a false sense of loyalty which is clouding his judgement?

Or perhaps he's just plain stupid? ...................................................... This legendary coach seems to not understand distance running at the elite level.

Help please! When posting a quote, how do I get it to be in a box, and how do I get out of the box? Please..