Another run across America underway - is it legit? Boots currently on the ground

That thread was the best! We need to get the same amount of eyeballs on this new guy to see if he is legit.

Robert Young might have gotten away with his fraud until people followed him then he slowed down and crashed immediately,

Wonder what happened to him.

They won't be corrupting the data. The business model was unchanged since day 4 of Jogle in 2019. Just loads of 90-120bpm K's [over 2,000 in 50 days] when he usually runs at 130-190.

Since I read them the riot act four days ago the heart rates have shot up to credible levels but of course he can't handle it, so there are still all those dreaded 5 minute Ks at 110. Yuk. And the really high heart rates then crashed in the following days.

Out in the isolated desert there are so many ways to get him from A-B. Sharing the watch around, roller-blades, bicycle and about three vehicles. No idea what's going on, I just know that his speeds are super world-class for a quasi novice [a 7 hour 37 miler has just landed] and all so much of it on a physiologically impossible heart rate.

I agree that a lot of this run seems dodgy, but wrist-based watches are NOT remotely accurate for everyone, regardless of what this study found.

I've tried 5 wrist HRMs over the past year, including one Garmin. They were all off at times by 20-40bpm. I tried all the tips, but they didn't stop the problem. Some people just can't get consistently accurate results with a wrist HRM. This is a very common problem and I've read complaints about wrist HRM accuracy in every Facebook running group I've joined.

That said, if I was attempting a record and HR was going to be used in part to verify the run AND if I had raised a half million dollars for the effort, I'd make darn sure that my HRM was accurate by wearing a chest strap every day.

And yet if you look at his older everyday pre Transcon runs in Strava, when he was wearing a heart rate watch, the heart rate data looks fairly reasonable. Go figure!

You statement "not remotely accurate for everyone" should read "not for 1-2%". If you took 100 random runs on Strava, the data would fine or passable for 98+ of them. I don't care about the odd anomaly when it spits out a weird or kooky number, no problem, it happens, I care about an entire large run being totally out of whack with a mystifyingly low beat.

I have looked at over 1,000 and haven't found any that look badly askew. And certainly none where it's only ever low for high-paced running.

Also, for four years, this guy's own data is clean. It only becomes unclean at these incredibly specific moments:

Post day 1 of a large multiday challenge, with a big fundraise, clearly very tired, and with Balenger as his handler/valet. Then his pace, whilst remaining excellent, suddenly becomes accompanied with the heart rate of Clark Kent.

Morning all. This posted to the Jogle page:

ENCROACHMENT alert.

As ever almost no media or description of the running coming out of the camp. And no Day 17 Strava for some reason, which I told them had to be clean today or else I'd complain to their sponsors and the FCC.

I've never known such a dearth of intel in a multiday, and certainly so little chat about the bodily decomposition and exhaustion that occurs. He goes from one image of him having a Nucalm nap after 37 miles, to then a beer at the end of the day.

They then post this brag about being over a day over schedule, which leads me on to a very irritating niggle: If they're about 2 miles a day up on schedule, how does that translate to OVER a day in total? 2 x 16 is 32. Their full 16 day mileage if yesterday was another 52, is 839.

That's 16 miles worth of ENCROACHMENT as they're claiming 855. There shouldn't be 16 yards. This is very sloppy at best, and cheating at worst. The sacrosanct thing with this is to put down a marker each day and photograph it. We never see that. How can they have taken a day out themselves when they're only about 2-3 miles per day up on target? It makes no sense.

We have far bigger things to worry about, but for them to be encroaching too is really taking the mickey. I do just wonder if flaws like this could be another way to get them. A bit like nailing Al Capone for tax evasion!

People are now commenting on his Strava in quite high volume. I invite this level of attention and scrutiny to continue.

This is my comment on Day 15:

As this day has attracted a fair bit of comment, let me point out some terrible flaws. The data is clean and perfect until the 18th mile, and then it all goes completely haywire. His 9:46 k pace at 154bpm becomes a a 7:38 k at 137. How can this be? And matters then get much, much worse. The next is a 6:11K at 107. He is then set on this pattern of superman mode for the rest of the run. For instance, for miles 36-44, all covered seriously fast [like a 6:27 and 6:35k pace], his bpms are: 110, 105, 107, 102, 109, 106, 104, 97, 99. Sorry but it's outrageous.

Keep up the good work. Amazing how many frauds there are out there.

OK. I just watched the youtube videos for the first time. A couple of observations.

1. the guy always looks fresh, clean, showered, teeth brushed and smiling. Shows his feet after a run and nothing is wrong with them.

2. the 3rd video where they fake outrage over Will was strange indeed. Why would a helper-crew member be the one going off if a fit about criticism. Then right after that they conclude the video with this being all about charity and Mom's memory. (Very theatrical and staged to win support)

3. It looks like the crew has 4 ultra-runners. How convenient. If all are helping to provide the data that changes the distance needed to 13 miles per day per person.

4. Why would a hardcore ultra-runner decide to crew and not want to run the event themselves with him ? We runners are competitive. Also, would you take 50 days out of your life to crew someone that you did not really know? Well maybe you would if you saw this was going to be a windfall money maker.

Yeppers, I am skeptical.

It is truly remarkable how little help with the pacing he's been given. Maybe 10%? If I had 5 crew I'd expect a 90% chaperone. He's usually alone in images and footage of him running. I think they're trying the cinematic approach of the imagery looking more stark and haunting if he's alone. They have a bike there... roller blades... and several runners. Fine for him to be paced much of the time. I have no problem with that, I just want him to do the bloody thing.

Yes, Balenger seems to have done desperately little of the run and when he did one the other day someone pointed out it didn't match WG. This anomaly goes back to 2019.

I welcome your insightful observations and for sure he looks fresh as a daisy, like a model, and not like a heroin addict nursing a 20 year addiction... as the rest of us tend to start resembling.

Your notes are a companion piece to 50 of his last 65 pages of data at these stunts, nursing a heart rate belonging to superman... when all his other running is in the 130-190s.

He struck a 189bpm for a K at the London marathon! Savage.

I find it odd that he never seems to sweat. I couldn’t find any photos of him that looked like he ran with any visible effort.

Anyone who does a run but puts a tracker in their van instead of on themselves is about as trustworthy as Donald Trump and should be put in the bin.

Thanks for this, and thanks for your information overall.

Nevertheless, DaftPoint is absolutely right that "it's physiologically impossible" is one point and you're making a different point in "on Strava ... nowwhere, EVER, is there an example anywhere of ... this," even if there's overlap (e.g., that you infer the second from the first or however else you might characterize this thinking).

As you originally stated it, the Strava point was set forth as though it is empirical evidence supporting your point that the WG data (and therefore reported running activity) is physiologically impossible, when you note now that you're instead drawing conclusions in the other direction ("it doesn't exist because it's ...")

And you seem rational and meticulous enough in your other posts to understand this (I'd hope without even being called out on it). Now that you've apologized for this error in "wording," I wouldn't necessarily say that this still "diminishes your credibility greatly," but if you're serving the truth here, I hope you're able to bolster your credibility by taking a bit more care in the way you present your findings.

That, of course, will enable greater focus on the legitimacy of this run.

Take this with a pinch of salt because I haven't spoken to him in years, but he was by no means an aerobic / conditioning / athletic phenom back when we played rugby (late teens), and PED use was RIFE. So if you're seeing all time great data then I'd look for explanations away from the athlete himself.

Really nice lad, though - at least back then, I wouldn't have said he was the type to be cheating to this degree.

I am not hooked up with all his social media outlets. But I am curious how he feels about runners joining him along the way. If he was legit, he would be public about wanting the exposure and to make this thing viral. If he was non-legit, then not so much.

Has he posted that he wants people to come out unexpectedly and join him?

Thank you, noted and accepted. Posting findings for day 16 now.

HEART-RATE REPORT OF WILLIAM GOODGE DAY 16 TRANSCON, APRIL 17, 2023

Before the day began, I wrote to Messrs Goodge, Balenger and Robinson to give them a final warning that if they didn’t return clean heart rate data for day 16, I would report them to all their many sponsors, the two charities, the FCC and possibly Scotland Yard for wire fraud.

Only Balenger replied, telling me I was a “f**cing looser”, and a “crazed hack with no f*cking idea what you’re talking about. Enjoy continuing to be a small small man.”

The numbers they have posted are of absurdly fast running off an impossibly low heart rate, and clearly false and not of a person running the course, especially nearly 1,000 miles into the challenge.

This is a simple breakdown:

The first 6 miles are clean as a whistle. No issues. WG runs at a heart rate of around 145 with a peak of 153. Mile 7 he hits trouble with an 18 minute mile which sees his heart drop to 128, which of course is spot on. 131bpm for the next K in 6:40 is just about ok and he then
runs a downhill K in 5:18 which is very quick but his heart rate is clean, at a high 161, just as one would expect.

Then the trouble starts:

A 5:49 is scored at 113bpm, an obvious impossibility. Then an amazing 5:26 at 116. Then a 5:21 at 120. Note that an hour earlier he was doing 7:08 for the k at 143bpm, and now it’s 5:21 at 120.

He then returns normal running for the next 6 miles of 13-19 which I have no issue with; but then drops his heart lower and lower and lower for the last 34 miles of the day, all the way down to 100.

Some examples of this sequence of physiologically impossible running include a 6:30K at 112 and a 6:04 at 116. In total, for those last 34 miles he runs between 100-130 28 times, and
100-120 19 times.

Note, when running with clean data for the first 6 miles he ran between 131-157, and then between 13-18 when his data was also clean, his range was 139-154. A very similar range,
although clearly fatiguing compared to the opening part of the day.

WG did two pieces to camera. The first was a proud commercial for a 30 minute Nucalm nap, saying he’d just done 37 miles in 7 hours, which was “one of the best mornings I’ve had.”

They then put up a big caption at the end of the day enjoying a beer to say they’re now over a day up on schedule on the Tulloh British record. I shall refer this report to all the above companies.

WVL Cockerell 18 April 2023

You've made the implication quite clear, and the data (as presented) shows something which is, as you say, "physiologically impossible". So a few questions then:

1) Is anyone else picking up on this?
2) What have his camp said about this, and what reasoning have they given (if any)?
3) Short of cheating, what other explanations can be given for this consistent, implausible pattern to keep occurring?

That data is clearly incorrect, but they don't seem to be too bothered about it being out there. Seems a bit too blatant, surely?