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

rojo wrote:

One other thing. I'm putting some of the funnier meme's in there at the bottom of the article.

There was one that talked about how his training involved "Unleaded" . Some reference to unleaded. Does anyone have the link to it? I loved that one but can't find it easily.

Do you feel like memes are going to suggest an unbiased, professional, neutral, and objective analysis of the facts?

tripler wrote:

Doubler wrote:

I need to source these and put them up for sale on my blog. I'll be rich.

You have a blog? Why didn't you tell us?

I could post a link if you'd like.

rojo wrote:

The article is coming along nicely. I'm pretty much done with it. I just now need to reach out the race organizers and Rossi for comment.

Fantastic.

Afterwards, maybe you can write up an article on the 2013 NFC Championship game.

Here is the one you were looking for:

http://memegenerator.net/instance/62074706

At least 3 MR DQ generators:

http://memegenerator.net/Mikerossicheat

http://memegenerator.net/Mikerossicheat1

http://memegenerator.net/Mike-Rossi-Cheater

Rojo, I think that what you have written about those photo checkpoints is accurate, but could even be extended. These spots were analyzed, as I recall, because it was noticed while sleuthing through the pictures that at certain points on the course pictures were being snapped every couple of seconds, and a long portion of the course was visible (like 100m). So it is possible to stitch the photos together to make essentially a continuous movie. People even counted how many pictures were taken at these locations during different minutes around the time when Mike should have been running by (by looking at the timestamps of the photos). It's like 40+ photos per minute for the 10 minutes when Mike should have been running by. So it basically isn't possible that Mike ran by that part of the course, unless he ran the 100m that is visible in just a couple of seconds. Really, you should scroll through the relevant photos (and maybe put a link in your article), it's incredibly damning.

The three checkpoints where we looked for the 20 closest finishers to Mike (10 before and 10 after) was an extension of this line of evidence. The idea is that this is a little more concrete than simply telling people to either take our word for it that the pictures are 'basically overlapping and continuous', or to scroll through the photos themselves (which a lot of people won't). Indeed we found that all 20 closest finishers were seen at these checkpoints, many times each in most cases (which is pretty obvious that they would be if you've looked at how many pictures were being taken at these places when Mike was supposed to be coming through). Statistically, assuming Mike were just like these other people, the chances of this happening are about 1 in 9 thousand.

Raysism, 534, and whoever else was doing the checkpoint analysis, any of y'all still around? As I recall this discussion was happening somewhere around page 109 in the thread (give or take a few pages), so that might be a place to start looking for the information about how many pictures were taken each minute, etc.

I'm really glad to hear that this will make it into the article. I feel that these photo checkpoints are some of the simplest, most straightforward evidence against Mike, and very convincing. I would love it if Raysism et al who did this work could chime in and elaborate on what I've said.

Here is the great post by Raysism that kicked this photo checkpoint thing off on page 104. This proves that Mike was somehow at least 10 minutes behind where he should have been at this point (or else he ran 100m in about 2 seconds to sneak by). This eventually gets extended to include the checkpoint tab on the spreadsheet over the next 10 (?) pages or so.

Also, here is my favorite meme:

One of the clinchers for me that he cheated is the finishing photo. Yeah, I know it's circumstantial, and I also know that a non-runner wouldn't "get it", but even the slowest hobby jogger can tell that is not a man who just ran 26.2 miles in 3:11, a 40 or whatever minute PB, in 65 to 70 degree temps. Besides being too large and not being 100% drenched in his all black outfit, the sheepish celebration is clearly that of a phony who is thinking, "Did I overdo it with this crazy fast time?" Fatigue should be etched in his face and body; clearly it is not.

Neutral Observertard wrote:

rojo wrote:

One other thing. I'm putting some of the funnier meme's in there at the bottom of the article.

There was one that talked about how his training involved "Unleaded" . Some reference to unleaded. Does anyone have the link to it? I loved that one but can't find it easily.

Do you feel like memes are going to suggest an unbiased, professional, neutral, and objective analysis of the facts?

I'll answer for rojo, NO.

Rojo,

I'm wondering if your article may get more traction if you hold off releasing it until you get an answer from the Lehigh RD on whether he is DQ'ed or not, that way you can skew it based on that outcome and there's a greater likelihood of it getting picked up by other media.

Also, when you do an article that you think may have broader interest do you release it via an agency that forwards it to national and international outlets or do you just post it on LR and hope it gets picked up?

The reason I ask is because the previous stories on Rossi about the school principal and the possibility he cheated have gone national and international, including main stream media.

Any new article needs fresh impetus to get coverage and that will only come from the RD directors decision on whether he's DQ'ed or not.

Rojo, I don't know if you are writing a news article (MR accused of cheating to get BQ) or an opinion piece (MR cheated to get BQ). I personally think it should be the latter. If so, here's my suggestion for a headline:

Photos Prove "Viral Marathon Dad" Mike Rossi Cheated Way Into Boston Marathon

I review and present evidence everyday for a living. Of all of the evidence mentioned on this thread, clearly the most damning is the lack of MR appearing in any of the near-continuous photos at multiple checkpoints on the LV course. If you are going to lay out the evidence in an article about Mike Rossi, the checkpoint photo evidence needs to go first. Nothing else comes close. People who refer to the photos from the photo checkpoints as "circumstantial evidence" are wrong. There is nothing circumstantial about those photos. They are direct evidence that MR did not run by those checkpoints at the same time as all of the other runners who finished in the couple minutes ahead of him and the couple minutes behind him. I suppose MR could argue that he ran off the course in those various areas, but then he is admitting he did not run the course, and he would have to be DQ'd. On the other hand, if he clings to his apparent claim that he ran the whole course, those photos alone prove otherwise.

Of course, it is also telling that every other bit of evidence that has been mentioned in this thread also points to the conclusion that MR did not run the full race at LV, but, in my opinion, nothing is as compelling and conclusive as the checkpoint photo evidence. I hope that you are writing your article with the checkpoint photo evidence listed first among all of the evidence that proves MR cheated his way into Boston.

Neutral Observertard wrote:

rojo wrote:

One other thing. I'm putting some of the funnier meme's in there at the bottom of the article.

There was one that talked about how his training involved "Unleaded" . Some reference to unleaded. Does anyone have the link to it? I loved that one but can't find it easily.

Do you feel like memes are going to suggest an unbiased, professional, neutral, and objective analysis of the facts?

Rojo,

Please heed this warning. Including memes is very bad idea in my opinion. As this post alludes to -- keep it professional and objective.

Haha my meme is going to be in the article :)

This guy is right wrote:

Neutral Observertard wrote:

Do you feel like memes are going to suggest an unbiased, professional, neutral, and objective analysis of the facts?

Rojo,

Please heed this warning. Including memes is very bad idea in my opinion. As this post alludes to -- keep it professional and objective.

Memes? Really? There isn't a news outlet on earth that will take you serious if you do that. What is in this article that hasn't been reported 1000 times in other blogs and articles and posts. There is one story and it only becomes a story if he's DQ'd.

bloodsport wrote:

Memes? Really? There isn't a news outlet on earth that will take you serious if you do that. What is in this article that hasn't been reported 1000 times in other blogs and articles and posts. There is one story and it only becomes a story if he's DQ'd.

True enough

There may be news outlets that take him seriously though.

Where's my POD button?

rojo wrote:

One other thing. I'm putting some of the funnier meme's in there at the bottom of the article..

No.

In my opinion wrote:

Rojo, I don't know if you are writing a news article (MR accused of cheating to get BQ) or an opinion piece (MR cheated to get BQ). I personally think it should be the latter. If so, here's my suggestion for a headline:

Photos Prove "Viral Marathon Dad" Mike Rossi Cheated Way Into Boston Marathon

I review and present evidence everyday for a living. Of all of the evidence mentioned on this thread, clearly the most damning is the lack of MR appearing in any of the near-continuous photos at multiple checkpoints on the LV course.

Shouldn't that be 'Lack of photos prove' and you're mentioning marathon twice in the headline, unnecessary and not good. Also, "Viral Marathon Dad" only really means something to us here on LR.

Also, I wouldn't put the article out until he'd been DQ'ed (as someone else said, non-story if no DQ) and use headline:

'Lack of Photos Prove Disqualified Runner Mike Rossi, Who Outed School Principal, Cheated His Way Into Boston Marathon'

"Disqualified", "Outed" and "Cheated" are good hooks.

Bet rojo's glad he's got all these experts giving him advice.

No, I said what I meant.

It isn't the lack of photos that proves MR cheated. It is the fact that MR is not in any official race photos except at the finish line when more than enough photos were taken at three separate spots on the course that MR would have been in at least one and probably more than one photo taken at each location if he had actually run the entire course.

Anyone who understands that there were near-continuous photos taken at three separate spots on the LV course during the time periods MR would have been running by those three spots to achieve his recorded time is convinced that MR cheated. The problem is, some people are confused by the "lack of photos" argument and assume that MR might have run by each photo spot while the photog at that spot was taking a break or failed for some other reason to snap a photo while MR passed by. Since no one (to my knowledge) has put the race photos together in a video-like stream, the best Rojo and others can try to do is describe the situation as clearly as possible. Stats guys can argue 1 in 9,000 or 1 in 11,000, but, in my opinion, the race photos prove beyond any reasonable doubt that, at the very least, MR did not run those portions of the LV course where virtually continuous photos were taken. Therefore, the photos prove he cheated.

I agree that it won't be a big story in the general media unless MR is DQ'd. But, it will be a huge story and last much longer in the running media (here, RW, and other running sites and blogs) if the RD doesn't DQ Rossi. That is because pretty much all runners not named or related to Mike Rossi knows he cheated.