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

Took me a while wrote:

Stereo FM wrote:

[quote]Took me a while wrote:

Will Frank sue for damages, then? Why not?

I am not Frank's counsel but I would almost assuredly think any counsel he does have would not pursue the case. It's not worth it.

He wanted to give up and go away. You all won't allow that.

I would be more concerned for the posters on this thread if there were a discovery and that necessitated the forum to pierce their veil of anonymity. It can and does happen from time to time. See also: topix.com. Who here is willing to bring this outside of an anonymous forum? My guess is not many.

But the case for the Defense is so strong, is it not? Vindication and validation for the plaintiff - the Court is the sanctuary of the innocent.

Oh yeah, remind me not to use my real name. Too late!

Took me a while wrote:

I would be more concerned for the posters on this thread if there were a discovery and that necessitated the forum to pierce their veil of anonymity. It can and does happen from time to time. See also: topix.com. Who here is willing to bring this outside of an anonymous forum? My guess is not many.

This guy is not anonymous. You are an anonymous troll but this guy nails his colours to the mast and nails Frank to the floor. All Frankie s cheating laid bare...

I’m troll with no life who couldn’t pass the bar. That’s why I’m on here.

"Took me a while" - at first I thought you were just a troll making up racism charges for something to do. But if so, you are incredibly motivated for the task. Last night you posted constantly for 5 hours! Here are the times of your postings on this message board:

1959, 2018, 2032, 2054, 2104, 2120, 2126, 2132, 2145, 2152, 2204, 2212, 2223, 2244, 2254, 2306, 2337, 2344, 2352, 2355, 0011, 0026, 0037, 0044, 0105. I may have missed one or two. I presume you went to sleep after that.

Then today: 0910, 0916, 0922, 0925, 0929, 0932, 0935, 0940, 0944, 0959, 1000, 1006, 1012, 1025, 1028, 1030, 1032, 1047, 1059, 1107, 1111, 1120, 1122, 1134, 1148...

Plus the very small penis.

I don’t and have never practiced law in the area of defamation. However, for those questioning my legal expertise based on a previous post and the use of the word slander, I was referring to this -

https://youtu.be/tL2a-7KUfMo

As for representing Frank Meza, I am not. The original email & comment to the LA Times was as a friend at Frank’s request. However, having spent some time on Derek Murphy’s website, I am beginning to second guess my decision as well as our friendship, I get the distinct feeling I have been duped. I feel I need to have a “frank” discussion with him.

I find the consistent lack of photos one of the most damning pieces of evidence. Having only run one marathon myself, how likely is it that someone who doesn’t look like they would be running at the front end of the field but is would be intentionally ignored by the photographers?

BTW – All posts here under Scott Dominguez have been by me, I posted initially unregistered and then registered it to prevent others from using it.

Took me a while wrote:

Plus the very small penis.

Hey, that's below the belt. I do admit to having a thing for Frank though. Older guy, mysterious. enigmatic - dresses like a stud.

Can you really blame me?

Evidence....not rhetoric. C'mon, TMAW, you can do better than that. If none of this is true, how has Loyola administration been affected? Do you have access to their financial records showing a drop in donations to the school, or that enrollment has suffered? Who at Loyola has been disciplined or dismissed? How has the ADA been impacted? Has he been reassigned at work? At least I've taken the time to provide evidence rather than words. You may disagree regarding the weight of the evidence, but ultimately, the weight of the evidence is something the jury gets to decide.

As I noted before, I think that you're a lawyer or have gone to law school. So let me throw out a jury instruction to you and see if you remember it. Judges are required to give this one in all criminal cases.

I have no doubt Frank has been affected negatively by this entire saga. I suspect that could be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, either through circumstantial OR direct evidence.

Hell, I have been negatively affected. You should see my work productivity in the last week. Close to zero. This is way more interesting.

What part of “Marathon Investigation” do you not understand?

The piece of evidence where he never passed the video camera in Phoenix is rock solid 100% proof. There was no gap in time, the entire road was visible.

I haven’t heard any of his supporters, or Frank, offer an explanation for that one.

My head just exploded. This story is just so wild.

Scott Dominguez wrote:

As for representing Frank Meza, I am not. The original email & comment to the LA Times was as a friend at Frank’s request. However, having spent some time on Derek Murphy’s website, I am beginning to second guess my decision as well as our friendship, I get the distinct feeling I have been duped. I feel I need to have a “frank” discussion with him.

I find the consistent lack of photos one of the most damning pieces of evidence. Having only run one marathon myself, how likely is it that someone who doesn’t look like they would be running at the front end of the field but is would be intentionally ignored by the photographers?

That must have been a hard post to write, Scott. But thank you for taking the time. It takes a strong moral compass to admit when one is wrong. Your Loyola education has served you well.

Took me a while wrote:

Stereo FM wrote:

[quote]Took me a while wrote:

Will Frank sue for damages, then? Why not?

I am not Frank's counsel but I would almost assuredly think any counsel he does have would not pursue the case. It's not worth it.

He wanted to give up and go away. You all won't allow that.

I would be more concerned for the posters on this thread if there were a discovery and that necessitated the forum to pierce their veil of anonymity. It can and does happen from time to time. See also: topix.com. Who here is willing to bring this outside of an anonymous forum? My guess is not many.

I've told a thousand people about Frank in person already. So, I guess that counts as outside of an anonymous forum.

jesseriley wrote:

The first 30 pages of this thread took almost 2 months, the last 30 took 3 days! I guess the trolls want to make Meza the most famous cheater ever. And unlike his marathons, also the fastest.

What is going on with the thread? When I started reading it on Monday, it was like a normal thread. Now I can't keep up with it and it's full of crap.

Who is posting? I mean there isn't really anything to post about. The guy is a cheat. Period. What are we debating at this point?

I figured anyone defending him was joking around as a troll but there appear to be 5 pages of it.

I have to bid this thread farewell. At this point, I honestly feel bad for Dr. Meza.

He's incredibly accomplished, and he's done a lot of great work. However, for some reason, he decided to cheat in a bunch of endurance races. He unjustifiably robbed other hardworking athletes of the recognition they deserved. He's also apparently thrown friends under the bus, and has refused to admit wrongdoing.

Nevertheless, running seems to be an important part of his life, and he's devoted a lot of time to it. I hope he doesn't stop running or competing. Obviously, I hope he stops cheating, but I hope he keeps running.

Hopefully, he comes clean, explains what the heck happened and helps deter others from cheating, and keep running.

Scott Dominguez wrote:

I don’t and have never practiced law in the area of defamation. However, for those questioning my legal expertise based on a previous post and the use of the word slander, I was referring to this [video snipped]

Hi Scott, I don't have any legal training whatsoever but I believe that the Youtube clip would still be regarded as libel - something about being "published" rather than spoken to people.

"O, what a tangled web we weave when first we practise to deceive!"

Walter Scott

Just to clarify, I don't believe that the publisher of the Youtube clip in question would be remotely in danger of losing in court . . .