Is this another run cheat?

If the route was hilly at all, you might test the bike theory by comparing the pace and cadence to the elevation profile. I noticed that the cadence bounced between zero and 120 like you would expect from coasting on a bike. I would be interested to see how those zero cadence sections correlate to hills. Of course uphill should never have continuous zero cadence without a drop in pace, which would be a strike against the bike theory.

scam_watcheroo wrote:

If my theory about a bicycle/vehicle being used is correct, I may be able to find other people with GPS watch data that rode on a bike and compare graphs to see if the data looks similar.

I had a look at some of my bike recordings and the data quality is much the same as it is for running. If I hid the axes so you couldn't see speed and distance you would not be able to tell which is which. I don't have cadence measurement so I can't comment on that. I'm not sure what could increase noise on a bike - interference from the metal frame is about the only thing I can think of. I had a look between recordings I have for a steel framed bike and an aluminium bike but could see no difference. And again, there is no difference to my running data. To get cadence on a bike I assume you would have to have a foot pod as the watch is not going to be moving at all.

I did do a quick sanity check on the data and I was a bit surprised by the results. I looked at Recording 13 as it has the clearest distinction between the two zones. I then calculated the average speed using your values in Columns D and E . In the high cadence zone I took the values from 1.5 to 2.9 hours into the run and for the low cadence zone I took the values from 3.4 to 7.1 hours. The two average speeds were 4.18 mph and 6.83 mph. I had thought the two values would be closer. I don't know how the other recordings compare but visually they look consistent. I still believe the data is corrupted, the noise is too great and the cadence data is way too bizarre to determine anything from it. But I am curious as to the difference.

If you want to push the cheating argument further I think you need some secondary evidence. You have access to the routes he ran and you said he ran multiple loops . Physically where are the transition points from running to "cycling"? If they always occur at the same location - right in front of his house - that would be significant. If they are randomly scattered around it would prove nothing, though people will speculate.

Also, there are two points in Recording 13 where the speed reaches very high values - 35 mph at 4.42 hrs and 30 mph at 6.31 hrs. (your smoothed curve lowers these values but they still stand out). Topographically where do these points occur. They would need to be on a steep down hill to achieve those speeds on a bike. If he used this loop for other runs does the same phenomena occur at this location?

As I said I feel the data is crappy and it is only good for generalities rather than hard facts. If any conclusion is going to be drawn from it ancillary data will need to be used. I said in an earlier post hardware doesn't lie. In this case we could say hills and doorsteps don't lie.

Sorry this post is a bit long but I've spent my career digging through engineering data so it becomes something of an obsession.

Scam W:

One other thing: Do you have access to other runs from this person? I am talking about just regular training runs, recovery runs etc. If so do any of them show similar characteristics? While there could be motivation to cheat on a "world record" attempt it's hard to believe the person would also employ the same tactics on a 10K morning jog.

follower wrote:

Excellent work again Scam!

But please reveal their identities. We don't need to protect the feelings of cheaters. Because there is no institution like WADA involved in these stunt runs, public humiliation is the only punishment they will ever get.

Not interested unless you say who it is. We need to be able to follow this new run coming up.

Why suddenly so shy? there's never been an issue before with giving names.

Are they in the States or UK - at least say that.

Not interested wrote:

Not interested unless you say who it is. We need to be able to follow this new run coming up.

Why suddenly so shy? there's never been an issue before with giving names.

Are they in the States or UK - at least say that.

The OP wants us to debate the merits of the evidence first like what we are doing now. A different group previously did a bit of investigation into our suspect but they didn't do it in as much detail as we are doing now. The previous group only asked a few questions but never put the evidence together into a coherent form that could be shared with regular people.

Our suspect has obtained quite a lot of world wide media coverage for his suspicious runs. I think easily way more than Rob Young. All the more reason to take our time with this and do the additional work to satisfy Radisson and other's first.

Raddison wrote:

Scam W:

One other thing: Do you have access to other runs from this person? I am talking about just regular training runs, recovery runs etc. If so do any of them show similar characteristics? While there could be motivation to cheat on a "world record" attempt it's hard to believe the person would also employ the same tactics on a 10K morning jog.

There are only a few runs with data before the record run attempt. I'll see if I can get the data.

1 2 3 green wrote:

If the route was hilly at all, you might test the bike theory by comparing the pace and cadence to the elevation profile. I noticed that the cadence bounced between zero and 120 like you would expect from coasting on a bike. I would be interested to see how those zero cadence sections correlate to hills. Of course uphill should never have continuous zero cadence without a drop in pace, which would be a strike against the bike theory.

I'll regenerate the Excel file with elevation data offset to a random value. In fact, I will generate GPX files of the runs with all the locations shifted into some ocean or random land mass and upload to Strava so everyone can see the run loops and elevation in Strava. This will keep the anonymity & location of the suspect secret while allowing everyone in this thread to see the route.

scam_watcheroo wrote:

[quote]1 2 3 green wrote:

I'll regenerate the Excel file with elevation data offset to a random value. In fact, I will generate GPX files of the runs with all the locations shifted into some ocean or random land mass and upload to Strava so everyone can see the run loops and elevation in Strava. This will keep the anonymity & location of the suspect secret while allowing everyone in this thread to see the route.

This sounds like a good idea. Will give better visibility to others as well.

A quick google listed a person recently claiming to run a whole bunch of 100km runs on consecutive days (and fail only just)

Note : This is just a guess? There can't be too many out there right?

https://www.ketto.org/fundraiser/thefaithrunner

I'm impatient! Now I know who it is.

I'm not that into tech. Can you totally disprove his previous claims?

Isn't it better he knows we are now watching him? Or you want him to go ahead and cheat again and catch him red handed?

Report the post naming him if you really do want to keep it secret. They remove any post here that you report as i'm sure you know.

You're all late to the party. This guy already got called by Gary Kiernan et al over on the URC FB page.

It was Andy Perrson

scam_watcheroo wrote:

I'll regenerate the Excel file with elevation data offset to a random value. In fact, I will generate GPX files of the runs with all the locations shifted into some ocean or random land mass and upload to Strava so everyone can see the run loops and elevation in Strava. This will keep the anonymity & location of the suspect secret while allowing everyone in this thread to see the route.

The anonymized GPX files of the suspect have been uploaded to my Strava account under the November 2016 timeframe. You will see our suspect running on the shores of Australia (not the real location).

I have also updated the analysis results Excel files on my Google Drive to include the anonymized location coordinates and elevation for people to look at. I highly recommend looking at the speed and cadence graphs from my Google Drive when you are looking at Strava because Strava uses a proprietary smoothing algorithm for their charts that hides lots of important details and introduces artifacts so that their graphs look nicer to the eye. I believe my graphs are a much more accurate representation of the data than the plots on Strava:

I can see the URC Facebook page in the UK discussed his past record attempt recently in August but can't see Gary commenting at all. Certainly not starting a thread.

Andy Persson was well duped by Rob Young and won't want to be fooled again.

It seems as he failed his record attempt in August the heat went off him?

Time to watch VERY carefully for his new stunt.

Nice little earner too. He's pocketed over $12, 500 in donations.

If someone is using a bike to aid a run record, how could they fail ? Were difficult questions asked while it was happening?

scam_,

What's with the inconsistent time between data points in the raw data? It's all over the place.

Also, it looks like you may want to double the cadence to reflect strides per min instead of rpm.

1 2 3 green wrote:

scam_,

What's with the inconsistent time between data points in the raw data? It's all over the place.

Also, it looks like you may want to double the cadence to reflect strides per min instead of rpm.

Yeah, the suspect's mile splits are very inconsistent as seen in Strava. From the Excel analysis output, we can see that this is due to both the breaks he takes as well as his high variability in speed itself.

I originally used spm for cadence in my analysis tool but removed it in favor of rpm per suggestion of another poster. GPX files store cadence in rpm instead of spm so it was simpler to stick with rpm. I could always modify the tool to use some if needed.

something is off. so many cadence data points are the same, almost a perfect line at 120. I wouldn't say you can achieve this by cycling. equipment defect of some sort?

I saw the odd 120spm thing too. It happens almost every run. Most of the time it bounces between 120spm and 0 every few data points for long stretches. Since it bounces between 0 and 120 that anomaly gets lost when the data is smoothed.

scam_, really my question was more about why the variability in time between each point. Sometimes it's 3-4 seconds between points, sometimes, 14, 15, 30. It's all over the place, averaging around 10s. I always thought garmin watches took points at consistent 1 or 2s intervals.