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

Took me a while wrote:

Who cares?

You make some great points. And you make some silly ones too, ridiculous actually.

But this assertion that nobody should care about any of this because he's an amateur running an amateur race is the silliest. Apparently there is a world record on the line (that point is still not clear to me). So a lot of people care. You've even touted in your previous posts about his running accomplishments and prowess. He's an elite runner, correct? These things elevate the scrutiny of any runner's accomplishments. And any runner who is at that level understands and will welcome that scrutiny. Franks knows that too, because he willingly surrendered his CIM winning finish when there were serious questions and allegations that couldn't be explained.

Plus, I can promise that many people who ran that race that day, those who legitimately covered the 26.2 miles under their own power, would take issue with anybody in the race who cheated and posted a better time than them. It's really not fair to any of them. Everyone trained hard to run, some had a great day there and some had an awful day because their race didn't unfold like they had hoped, yet they still carried on, they still covered the entire 26.2 miles, even though they're all amateurs, in an amateur race.

I want to believe Frank. I think he's done some amazing things. Take away all of these running shenanigans and he's an amazing person who gets real joy out of helping others. There's honor in that. But there are some real questions with these results. Why doesn't Frank just come on here and answer them? Or, better yet, he could use Marathon Investigations as a pulpit. Derek really doesn't have an axe to grind, and, like the rest of us, he wants to believe the guy is indeed a world record capable runner. He'd love to provide Frank with an outlet to answer these questions.

But Franks's silence isn't doing anything to put out these fires. In fact, it's making things worse.

Frankie Goes to Hollywood wrote:

and would immediately draw an anti-SLAPP motion which, when granted, would require a Meza to pay the proponent's attorney fees and costs.

For the legal information, of course.

Slightly off topic, but still related - I think it would be interesting if someone:

1) decided to cheat in one of these big marathons

2) announced their intention beforehand on these boards

3) proceeded to cheat

4) challenged folks on here to provide evidence of the actual cheating and

5) for bonus points, challenged folks to determine the method of cheating

Could be a fun project.

6.0221409e+23: Good stuff on Pike's Peak.

I guess I assumed the course marshals had been in place.

Even before, it seems like it'd be impossible for any mid packer cutting the switchbacks to go unnoticed by other runners; it's very open.

Slightly Off Topic wrote:

Slightly off topic, but still related - I think it would be interesting if someone:

1) decided to cheat in one of these big marathons

2) announced their intention beforehand on these boards

3) proceeded to cheat

4) challenged folks on here to provide evidence of the actual cheating and

5) for bonus points, challenged folks to determine the method of cheating

Could be a fun project.

In China you would be banned from road racing for life. In the US you "might" get DQ'd. (maybe not if you're in LA or Lehigh or Phoenix)

Slightly Off Topic wrote:

Slightly off topic, but still related - I think it would be interesting if someone:

1) decided to cheat in one of these big marathons

2) announced their intention beforehand on these boards

3) proceeded to cheat

4) challenged folks on here to provide evidence of the actual cheating and

5) for bonus points, challenged folks to determine the method of cheating

Could be a fun project.

It could actually prove instructive about the impossible nature of evidence demanded by some, is there any way of proving it that a sufficiently determined troll could not maintain had been faked?

No, a number of the course-cutting cases involved faster runners (particularly, in more recent years, European mountain runners, though I believe there were similar claims of course-cutting at least as far back as the 1970s) who were not concerned about how to pass flagging runners or hikers, but were trying to take shorter, faster routes than were provided by the trail itself. (At least as to some of those runners, there were questions about whether they knew that they were violating the rules.) And before there were chip timers and intermediate times provided for all participants (for example, in 1988), I don't recall anything that would have absolutely prevented someone from simply starting higher up on the mountain -- for example, between Barr Camp and timberline, and I do recall one case involving a very high finisher who probably did exactly that. (I am not, at all, suggesting that Frank Meza did that in 1988.)

Even after following egregious course-cutting cases for more than forty years, I still am shocked when I encounter them. To me, they're almost like robbing a bank in broad daylight. But people still do it, and apparently still get away with it.

Scott Dominguez' Dog, Ralph wrote:

Took me a while wrote:

Who cares?

You make some great points. And you make some silly ones too, ridiculous actually.

But this assertion that nobody should care about any of this because he's an amateur running an amateur race is the silliest. Apparently there is a world record on the line

The ridiculous ones were intentionally ridiculous just as how I find this thread discussing an amateur runner "cheating" at a non-WR eligible race.

He paid the money. He can run the race how he sees fit. It's something I like to call freedom. He can take breaks. He can stretch. He can run the race in a giant condom suit.

That you care if he sets a WR time does not mean that that he cares about it.

The only issues remain that: 1) he's a fast old guy and 2) what his motivations were.

His motivations are not yours. He said he doesn't care about time. He admitted to stopping. His story has not changed, ever.

To make the claim that he cheated (by no evidence other than the absence of him from some poorly done finisherpix/videos) we have to discount EVERYONE who knows him, the entire Loyola running community, an ADA, and believe that Frank meticulously cheated at a hundred marathons (for what reason?) and that there is NO real proof of it.

I'm not prepared to make that jump. I hope he cheated because otherwise you have ruined his life with this assinine smearjob.

To those people who claimed Frank is guilty because he responded that he is going to sue Derek for libel and retained counsel...

What would you do, in Frank's shoes?

You have an anonymous person call you, whom you've never heard of, threatening to expose you as a marathon cheat. Obviously you love running. You know you didn't cheat. What's the alternative? Bribe Derek to keep quiet? If he didn't cheat he's not going to admit to cheating!

Let me call any of your wives (anonymously) and claim that you've been cheating on them. What is your response? 100% you're threatening to get the law involved and sue me.

But it's different here because he's an old Latino who runs faster than you.

He paid the money. He can run the race how he sees fit. It's something I like to call freedom.

The whole basis of competition is respecting your competitors by adhering to the agreed-upon set of rules. It's a contract we make with each other. There is no more fundamental rule to running than running the agreed-upon course. No one gets to make up their own rules because they "paid the money."

Also we have something we like to call freedom - the freedom to criticize those who break the rules and attempt to gain from it.

To those claiming it's proof he cheated because he set a WR...

Here's something to think about. There aren't a lot of good 70 year old runners. Most have degenerative diseases long before then. I would expect that the EASIEST division to set a WR is in 70+. If you get to 80+ you might be the only damned person running.

Everyone claims this guy is fast. A former 2:20+ marathonner, who trains consistently with a top running school, running in almost 3 hours? Yeah I can buy that. It proves nothing.

How about a simple conversation/interview with Frank and who ever he wants, and rojo, Amby Burfoot, Gene Dykes, and a reporter. Amby already talked with him, but with all the new information a follow up could be warranted. Gene is the person who would be most affected by a false world record for 70+, and could compare training, diet, exercise, etc. with Frank. Since there are not many people at this age running at this level, Frank can present his case to a jury of his peers.

gregk wrote:

The whole basis of competition is respecting your competitors by adhering to the agreed-upon set of rules. It's a contract we make with each other. There is no more fundamental rule to running than running the agreed-upon course. No one gets to make up their own rules because they "paid the money."

Also we have something we like to call freedom - the freedom to criticize those who break the rules and attempt to gain from it.

That is YOUR basis. And if we are going to stick to that then we don't need amateur races anymore. Let's get rid of them and solve the problem.

Took me a while wrote:

To make the claim that he cheated (by no evidence other than the absence of him from some poorly done finisherpix/videos) we have to discount EVERYONE who knows him, the entire Loyola running community, an ADA, and believe that Frank meticulously cheated at a hundred marathons (for what reason?) and that there is NO real proof of it.

I ask again what would you accept as evidence that a runner cheated in a marathon?

N.B. To the "don't engage with trolls" people, I know its a troll but I want to see where its own internal logic takes us. Our fake DA troll vanished pretty quickly when someone pointed out nicely what the difference is between slander and libel.

vonschnapps wrote:

How about a simple conversation/interview with Frank and who ever he wants,

The weird thing here is that Frank has already given interviews to those people and tons of reporters saying the exact same story. He hasn't talked to Gene Dykes, maybe? Sure. Gene. Give him a call. I'm sure he'll say the same thing he's been saying this whole time...

Took me a while wrote:

The only issues remain that: 1) he's a fast old guy and 2) what his motivations were.

His motivations are not yours. He said he doesn't care about time. He admitted to stopping. His story has not changed, ever.

To make the claim that he cheated (by no evidence other than the absence of him from some poorly done finisherpix/videos) we have to discount EVERYONE who knows him, the entire Loyola running community, an ADA, and believe that Frank meticulously cheated at a hundred marathons (for what reason?) and that there is NO real proof of it.

I'm not prepared to make that jump. I hope he cheated because otherwise you have ruined his life with this assinine smearjob.

I understand you're trolling. Nevertheless, my friend, you are absolutely incorrect. The accused ran a 70+ FKT under very tenuous circumstances (e.g., failing to run with an observer despite LAM's request that he do so; admittedly violating LAM rules by veering off course and not returning at the point where he left). Accordingly, a completely neutral and very prolific figure in the running community asked the accused to clear the air by running a time trial. The accused has thus far only hedged.

ExpertKipWatcher wrote:

I ask again what would you accept as evidence that a runner cheated in a marathon?

N.B. To the "don't engage with trolls" people, I know its a troll but I want to see where its own internal logic takes us. Our fake DA troll vanished pretty quickly when someone pointed out nicely what the difference is between slander and libel.

Get a picture of him on a bus or riding a bike to prove that his own two feet didn't carry him and we can have a debate on whether an autonomous person has the freedom to ride transportation during a time where _you_ expect them to be running.

Until then your evidence is: 1) he's fast. 2) we have shoddy evidence that a photographer may or may not have missed him 3) he stretched.

Took me a while wrote:

But it's different here because he's an old Latino who runs faster than you.

This statement is cheap, it is transparent, it has nothing to do with the topic. For example, I did not pay attention to that before you started. Maybe you think much more in categories that deal with prejudice and racism than anyone else?

The Mooch wrote:

I understand you're trolling. Nevertheless, my friend, you are absolutely incorrect. The accused ran a 70+ FKT under very tenuous circumstances (e.g., failing to run with an observer despite LAM's request that he do so; admittedly violating LAM rules by veering off course and not returning at the point where he left). Accordingly, a completely neutral and very prolific figure in the running community asked the accused to clear the air by running a time trial. The accused has thus far only hedged.

What part of Frank having the freedom and ability to choose what races he runs do you not understand?

Blame LAM for not forcing an observer in subsequent years, if you wish. You cant convict a guy of cheating because he ran a marathon, just not the one YOU wanted him to.

The fact that you think he ran all there far-off marathons which he was unfamiliar with (like Oakland) and cheated at all of them successfully should cause warning bells going off in your head that this whole story is a con.