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

ExpertKipWatcher wrote:

FOR ExpertKipWatcher wrote:

Enlighten me. I don't get it. I'm referring to the whole cutting the bottom of the bib, holding the timing chip on a lanyard, etc. I don't understand why he'd do it. Is it so that he can hand off the timing chip without anybody seeing a bib swap? If so, then there's an accomplice out there who knows that all fo this stuff was going on. Is that what you mean?

Is there a reasonable, innocent explanation for why someone would do this ? Most of the accomplice theories are based on "I don't see how he could blah blah blah" but this is the only reasonable explanation for separating the number from the timing chip.

FM must know where the bodies are buried... or some other nefarious detail of someone's life. Aiding and abetting is the price of silence.

My take is that this is a legit post by Scott. He must have been contacted by Wharton prior to the article being published and now he's posting expressing that he wishes more of his "character reference" of Frank had been included in the article. Obviously not the brightest attorney out there.

Smart Runner wrote:

Any of those would and will do it. Calm down. Clearly he is capable of those times, judging by his athletic look and past.

I think it’s true.

Image-1.jpg

Crap, picture didn’t show

triathleteguru wrote:

My take is that this is a legit post by Scott. He must have been contacted by Wharton prior to the article being published and now he's posting expressing that he wishes more of his "character reference" of Frank had been included in the article. Obviously not the brightest attorney out there.

Maybe. I messaged Wharton. I am not concerned in the least. I expect to write more about Frank. Lots of pressure being applied from all ends to try to shut down the stories and to suppress the evidence.

doubler wrote:

Maybe. I messaged Wharton. I am not concerned in the least. I expect to write more about Frank. Lots of pressure being applied from all ends to try to shut down the stories and to suppress the evidence.

You would assume that the owners of Letsrun have been pressured too hence the well-advised nature of their keeping out of this, credit is due for them not shutting it down. People have been known to back up threads like this. . . .

ExpertKipWatcher wrote:

bored troller wrote:

EKW, you were posting on the comments, correct?

Not the LA Times, a lot of US media websites don't even let people from the EU even browse the site due to the hassle for them of having to comply with the latest data protection regs in EU countries so even though the LA Times doesn't block to that extent, I really can't see any comments or links to comments. I suppose if I was bothered I could pay for a VPN and set a US IP.

Opera browser (free) has a basic VPN available (free) if you open "New private window." You can choose virtual location (Europe, Americas, or Asia). This would probably get you around the EU reg's.

FrankMezaTrump wrote:

PDX wrote:

It looks like LA has reached out to my buddy’s consulting service to work on ways to reduce the likelihood of cheating and find cheaters at future races.

Better late than never I guess.

Pass it on to him that he should advise them they should first DQ Meza (set the example that even if you cheat months/years later, you may get DQ'd for clear rule violations ) and then get to work on preventing future cheaters (or hire Meza like DeCaprio's character in Catch Me If You Can--half joking).

He said they are still in the process of determining what to do with him (he is not involved in the decision). Lifetime ban is likely course of action though.

Meat Tornado wrote:

What performance would people accept to take a little heat off of the accused?

Equivalency charts indicate a 2:56 'thon is a:

18:21 5k;

38:16 10k;

1:24:25 half...

Stop suggesting that Frank can "take a little heat off" of himself by providing some acceptably strong performance at some distance or another. We all know that he won't do this, and there is no good reason to believe that he ever could. When the people behind the LA marathon said that the "best solution" to resolve this matter was to allow Frank to prove his ability by running another of their races with a monitor, and when Amby Burfoot said that the "best approach" for Frank to confirm his ability was by running another marathon or half-marathon with an observer, they weren't saying this because they actually believed that Frank would ever take them up on the idea or -- much more to the point -- because they actually believed that the proper way to determine whether someone should be disqualified for cheating in prior events is to allow that person the opportunity to approximate one or more of those performances at some unspecified time in the future. They were simply refusing to provide -- at least, publicly -- an honest opinion about what the evidence showed. That, in turn, simply allowed more delay and silliness to continue.

Under any recognized burden of proof, there is sufficient evidence for the LA marathon, or anyone else, to make a determination about whether Frank Meza cheated. There has been ample time to review that evidence and issue a decision about what the evidence shows.

To me, the interesting issues in this case long ago ceased to be about whether Frank Meza cheated. I want to know how things were allowed to get to this point, and why so many people, through their silence or otherwise, are allowing this purported dispute to continue.

VPN help wrote:

Opera browser (free) has a basic VPN available (free) if you open "New private window." You can choose virtual location (Europe, Americas, or Asia). This would probably get you around the EU reg's.

Thanks, good info, I did that and now below the article I see a red/pink bar that initially said "Be first to comment" but on a refresh now says Comments (79)

Reading the LA Times article from a neutral unbiased prospective would lead the ordinary reasonable reader to question Meza's LAM result, because, as the very least, the article advises readers that LAM is taking steps to disqualify.

However, the online comments on FB and the LA Times website would suggest that there is an underhanded attempt to manipulate the dialogue. I suspect there is a PR firm involved.

Heard back from Wharton. The commenter on the article was really Scott Dominguez the lawyer.

If he actually did post here, feel free to contact me at

Derek@marathoninvestigation.com

.

I’ll be happy to walk through the evidence in detail if he has any questions after reading my articles.

If he can explain it all, I will happily publish his explanations on my site.

doubler wrote:

Heard back from Wharton. The commenter on the article was really Scott Dominguez the lawyer.

If he actually did post here, feel free to contact me at

Derek@marathoninvestigation.com

.

I’ll be happy to walk through the evidence in detail if he has any questions after reading my articles.

If he can explain it all, I will happily publish his explanations on my site.

Scott said he would guarantee that Frank’s times were valid. Ok then, we will then get to examine the proof. Present the evidence Scott and refute everything that has already been presented.

The LA Times article is the #1 most read article on their website today. Good riddance to this sick cheater.

That is just some really strange logic. "He is a really great guy, so that gigantic mountain of evidence is completely irrelevant."

But I'm not an attorney, so maybe someone in the legal field can explain it.

Strange Logic wrote:

That is just some really strange logic. "He is a really great guy, so that gigantic mountain of evidence is completely irrelevant."

But I'm not an attorney, so maybe someone in the legal field can explain it.

This was the Rob Young defence and his supporters took forever to recant or shut up.

Assuming that email really was written by Scott Dominguez the District Attorney, I find it quite surprising. For starters, it's surprising that a somewhat public figure like that - someone who the public has entrusted with with gathering evidence and making irrefutable arguments to bring down criminals - would willingly churn out a piece of writing so poorly-written and naive. We expect lawyerly types to at least be circumspect - so, he could have said that Meza was a wonderful guy who did these generous things for him years ago, and left it at that, rather than stating so forcefully that he also definitely did not cheat. By saying that, he is setting himself up to be shown a fool. Anybody that takes the time to watch Meza lurking at the side of the road before jumping into a race in progress is going to be like, great - we've got an idiot for a D.A.

Googling Scott Dominguez DA indicates he works or worked in the White Collar Crime Department, so he would have even less of an excuse for being blinded by loyalty and affection. He can't use the excuse that he was too trusting and didn't think a doctor/philanthropist could possibly cheat. He of all people should be familiar with the type.

As another poster or two mentioned, Dominguez's writing leaves a lot to be desired considering that it comes from an apparently successful lawyer. Besides a grammatical mistake that was pointed out earlier, he says (among other things) "I never ran faster than the number three runner on Varsity", which is an odd and imprecise way of putting it. Does he mean he actually was the number 3 runner at least on some occasions (in which case it is poorly worded)? Because the literal meaning of the sentence is that he never ran a time that was faster than the actual #3 runner, which could mean he was the #4 runner or the #15 runner. I would have thought such imprecise language would be anathema to a professional lawyer.

Dominguez babbles on "Dr. Meza is FAST when it comes to long distances, and he doesn't cheat." But he ran with him over 23 years ago! Does he still run with him? If so, he doesn't mention it. And if he doesn't, then presumably he realizes that someone who is fast in their mid-40's isn't likely to still be fast at 70. And how does he know he doesn't cheat? Does that kind of declaration fly in the courthouses where he makes a living?

The thing is, if this statement truly comes from Dominguez, he KNOWS it is riddled with faults. He has to know, because while a law school graduate might not be the greatest person, there is a certain level of intelligence required (or so I have been led to believe). And if he knows his statement his misleading, then he is guilty of willfully deceiving the public.

There's no underlying legal basis for Scott's position. A couple of quick thoughts:

- My guess is that the guy is smart enough to know that his praise of FM's character is not impactful with respect to whether or not FM cheats. My guess is that, to some extent, he is communicating via subtext - this is a good guy who has done a lot for the community, let's let this one slide.

- Don't shoot the guy for the grammatical errors. First of all, litigators are often less precise in their writing than transnational attorneys; but, more importantly, this is a pretty informal bit of writing. See the extraordinarily high number of typos in my posts on these boards. Also, sometimes you end up with verb-noun disagreements when people go back and tweak some of the clauses in their posts while in a hurry or on a mobile device.

Smoove wrote:

There's no underlying legal basis for Scott's position. A couple of quick thoughts:

Idk, man. He published his credentials and directly accused people of libel.