Not just a "bad knee", a bone-on-bone destroyed knee.She will need a knee replacement soon. On the bright side for her, reference Dick Beardsley in recent years, although he, as an actual elite athlete, is probably 100x more prudent than the Marvellous One.
Reality speaking wrote:
In what delusional world does Mimi live in? A 55 yr old with a bad knee is not setting any new world records in the future.
Reality speaking wrote:
In what delusional world does Mimi live in? A 55 yr old with a bad knee is not setting any new world records in the future.
She'll probably do what she's done before, some obscure stunt like 53 laps of the Isle of Man or 53 lengths of Hadrians Wall or 53 times the Ireland/Northern Ireland border, and claim a world record.
For some reason British stunt runners like the number 53.
Ironic that Sandy is on pace to set the record at 53 days.🇺🇸 🇺🇸 🇺🇸
British stunt runners like 53. wrote:
Reality speaking wrote:In what delusional world does Mimi live in? A 55 yr old with a bad knee is not setting any new world records in the future.
She'll probably do what she's done before, some obscure stunt like 53 laps of the Isle of Man or 53 lengths of Hadrians Wall or 53 times the Ireland/Northern Ireland border, and claim a world record.
For some reason British stunt runners like the number 53.
Mimi (Miranda?), bit of advice from an old hand, if you're going to refer to yourself as 'Marvelous' and talk the talk then at the very least you should literally walk the walk.
Also, surround yourself with people who know what they're doing, not the idiots you had this time, oh yeah, and ignore the fawning sycophants who tell you what you want to hear.
Old hand here. wrote:
Mimi (Miranda?), bit of advice from an old hand, if you're going to refer to yourself as 'Marvelous' and talk the talk then at the very least you should literally walk the walk.
Also, surround yourself with people who know what they're doing, not the idiots you had this time, oh yeah, and ignore the fawning sycophants who tell you what you want to hear.
+1
The while endeavor was quite childish
Hi all. I recently started looking into some of the allegations against Mimi regarding data forgery to see if I could add an additional point of view to some of the accusations. I ended up putting this into a blog so that I could show my working, show my reasoning, and importantly show my code in case anybody spots any errors. It is really just touching the surface of things, but based on this I believe that Mimi's Strava data are genuine.
https://irunfasterthanmycode.github.io/assessing-Mimi-Andersons-World_Record-run-part-I/
To lay my cards on the table, I am a friend of Mimi's (as are many people in the UK ultra scene because she is a very friendly lady), I post on the URC, and I am not the fastest runner in the world. I'm not here to call anybody out, I'm happy to have a reasonable discourse to try and get to the bottom of things, and I will be the first to hold my hands up if you spot any mistakes or if I have misrepresented any of your more salient points. It was all a bit rushed, especially after Mimi unfortunately announced that she was stopping. Whether or not she has enough data to claim the record is now moot, and I cannot comment on some of the things that happened towards the start of the run, but the damage done to her reputation with respect to the data forgery accusation is something that I hope to be able to salvage.
It's very long, mainly because I was trying to lay everything out there for people that haven't waded through this post, but you can skip the stuff before the analysis. I haven't put nearly as much time nor effort into looking at things as you guys have, and no doubt there are still plenty of questions unanswered. I in no way claim that this is "proof" that the data are fake, and will be sure to make that clear to avoid any confirmation bias. It is, however, evidence against duplicity. In particular I think that it shows that both Mimi's and Sandra's Strava data look perfectly reasonable, and this could have been a really fun race/event to witness. I'm interested to see Scam_Watcheroo's report as there are most definitely things that I have not considered or looked into.
Anyway, skip ahead to the Analysis section, and below is a summary of some of the main points. I hope that it's useful, and happy to look into feedback, although it may be a while before I am able to look into anything else.
* There are aspects of the spoofed data that make it stand out when compared to Mimi’s and Sandra’s (and my own) data
* I just do not think that it would be possible to create a forged data set that stands up to intense scrutiny - this is fairly basic scrutiny and it stands out
* Mimi is using 1s capture mode on constant capture for her runs, with the very occasional 3 or 4 sec delay
* Sandra is using 10s capture and has longer pauses in data retrieval of several minutes at a time (auto-pause?)
* Mimi's data sets are therefore an order of magnitude denser than Sandra's
* Mimi’s cadence blips of 200+ spm are likely just random c*ck ups in data capture - they disappear if you smooth out to a 10s capture rate (I was trying to contact her crew to ask her to set a second watch to 10s capture for one of her runs to confirm this, but unfortunately it was too late)
* You probably don’t see them for Sandra because they get averaged out
* Mimi is running with a high cadence but the average seems to fit with previous evidence (albeit very limited and definitely open to scrutiny) of her running gait (evidence from the film crew videos in the future will also help if/when released)
* Mimi is often running in 185-195 range, but then so do I - granted I am not running across a continent on a day by day basis, but I am also nowhere near elite
* Mimi’s cadence is about 10 spm quicker than Sandra’s for both walking and running
* Mimi seems to have a fairly even split of walking and running, whilst Sandra seems to consistently run but at a slower overall pace
*mic drop*
SANDY VI: 5-MILE SPLITS FOR OCT 19th
Time of Day: Miles completed
02:28 AM: 0
03:48 AM: 5
04:58 AM: 10
MILESTONE: 05:55 AM: 14 miles. Reaches the Mississippi. Goodbye Iowa. Hello Illinois.
06:13 AM: 15
07:18 AM: 20
Ivo Lucien wrote:
Not just a "bad knee", a bone-on-bone destroyed knee.
She will need a knee replacement soon. On the bright side for her, reference Dick Beardsley in recent years, although he, as an actual elite athlete, is probably 100x more prudent than the Marvellous One.
Reality speaking wrote:In what delusional world does Mimi live in? A 55 yr old with a bad knee is not setting any new world records in the future.
She should never run again. And her enablers who encouraged her to severely injure herself should crawl back into their mum's basement.
stupid runner wrote:
Hi all. I recently started looking into some of the allegations against Mimi regarding data forgery to see if I could add an additional point of view to some of the accusations. I ended up putting this into a blog so that I could show my working, show my reasoning, and importantly show my code in case anybody spots any errors. It is really just touching the surface of things, but based on this I believe that Mimi's Strava data are genuine.
https://irunfasterthanmycode.github.io/assessing-Mimi-Andersons-World_Record-run-part-I/To lay my cards on the table, I am a friend of Mimi's (as are many people in the UK ultra scene because she is a very friendly lady), I post on the URC, and I am not the fastest runner in the world. I'm not here to call anybody out, I'm happy to have a reasonable discourse to try and get to the bottom of things, and I will be the first to hold my hands up if you spot any mistakes or if I have misrepresented any of your more salient points. It was all a bit rushed, especially after Mimi unfortunately announced that she was stopping. Whether or not she has enough data to claim the record is now moot, and I cannot comment on some of the things that happened towards the start of the run, but the damage done to her reputation with respect to the data forgery accusation is something that I hope to be able to salvage.
It's very long, mainly because I was trying to lay everything out there for people that haven't waded through this post, but you can skip the stuff before the analysis. I haven't put nearly as much time nor effort into looking at things as you guys have, and no doubt there are still plenty of questions unanswered. I in no way claim that this is "proof" that the data are fake, and will be sure to make that clear to avoid any confirmation bias. It is, however, evidence against duplicity. In particular I think that it shows that both Mimi's and Sandra's Strava data look perfectly reasonable, and this could have been a really fun race/event to witness. I'm interested to see Scam_Watcheroo's report as there are most definitely things that I have not considered or looked into.
Anyway, skip ahead to the Analysis section, and below is a summary of some of the main points. I hope that it's useful, and happy to look into feedback, although it may be a while before I am able to look into anything else.
* There are aspects of the spoofed data that make it stand out when compared to Mimi’s and Sandra’s (and my own) data
* I just do not think that it would be possible to create a forged data set that stands up to intense scrutiny - this is fairly basic scrutiny and it stands out
* Mimi is using 1s capture mode on constant capture for her runs, with the very occasional 3 or 4 sec delay
* Sandra is using 10s capture and has longer pauses in data retrieval of several minutes at a time (auto-pause?)
* Mimi's data sets are therefore an order of magnitude denser than Sandra's
* Mimi’s cadence blips of 200+ spm are likely just random c*ck ups in data capture - they disappear if you smooth out to a 10s capture rate (I was trying to contact her crew to ask her to set a second watch to 10s capture for one of her runs to confirm this, but unfortunately it was too late)
* You probably don’t see them for Sandra because they get averaged out
* Mimi is running with a high cadence but the average seems to fit with previous evidence (albeit very limited and definitely open to scrutiny) of her running gait (evidence from the film crew videos in the future will also help if/when released)
* Mimi is often running in 185-195 range, but then so do I - granted I am not running across a continent on a day by day basis, but I am also nowhere near elite
* Mimi’s cadence is about 10 spm quicker than Sandra’s for both walking and running
* Mimi seems to have a fairly even split of walking and running, whilst Sandra seems to consistently run but at a slower overall pace
We don't need a URC Mimi fanboy waffling on here. We have enough of our own research on her thanks.
Why aren't you using your real name, Sam Robson? You URC mongs talk about nothing but how LRC must be ignored as we use handles not names.
Then you come on here hiding your identity.
You fanboys are like the Rob Young cult. Because you LIKE her then she must never be investigated and MUST be innocent.
Typical fanboy here - the guy with the beer gut who had an affair with her who invented some "award" to give her, that she then implies is some kind of nationally recognised award -
Mark Cockbain
I can save anyone the bother of reading that because she did the run no matter what ‘data analysis’ comes up with.
LikeShow More Reactions · 5 · 1 hr
stupid runner wrote:
* Mimi’s cadence is about 10 spm quicker than Sandra’s for both walking and running
* Mimi seems to have a fairly even split of walking and running, whilst Sandra seems to consistently run but at a slower overall pace
You have not been following along at all. Mimi was slower than Sandy. The split prove that. Yet her Strava indicates she is faster?
Look, the reason her cadence was buggered was because she was running on a bum leg. The buggered cadence occurred right after the vacation day. Do you know what that day is. Do you know what else happened on that day? Since you have analyzed everything you will know the answers immediately. Then you will understand how tragic it is that Mimi ran on an injured leg. Received medical attention twice yet continued on through all the pain. How she was able to run at all on a leg where the cartilage had ceased to exist days prior.
Blah blah blah blah wrote:
We have enough of our own research on her thanks.
Where is all this research?
"Stupid Runner" has posted the best analysis of Mimi yet. I'm waiting to see your research.
what is this drivel? wrote:
Blah blah blah blah wrote:We have enough of our own research on her thanks.
Where is all this research?
"Stupid Runner" has posted the best analysis of Mimi yet. I'm waiting to see your research.
That research 'proves' Mimi ran faster than Sandy even though the 5-mile splits prove she did not.
Regarding the existing Run Across America records.
Run Across America World Record — Guinness
Mavis Hutchinson age 53
- 2,871 miles in 69 days 2 hours 40 minutes in 1979.
- Los Angeles to New York. Solo run.
Run Across America World Record — Witnessed Group Race
Lorna Michael age 34
- 2,912.4 miles in 64 days in 1993.
- Los Angeles to New York. Group event.
- This was a stage group race like the Tour de France. The number of days, and the miles run each day, were determined in advance.
- This is not a Guinness record only because their required paperwork was not filed. But the event was witnessed by many people.
what is this drivel? wrote:
Where is all this research?
"Stupid Runner" has posted the best analysis of Mimi yet. I'm waiting to see your research.
Stupid Runner, Them apples...., and "what is this drivel?" are all the same person.
Them apples.... wrote:
Dear blah blah blah
The issue isn't that you use usernames, there's plenty on here that use them. The difference is that snide little cowards like you hide behind them to insult people. Scam, maker of points etc at least use regular registered handles while worms like you just post insults from anonymity.
You're nothing than a wee ball of shite
shite = Scottish poster = friend of Mimi's.
stupid runner wrote:
* Mimi is using 1s capture mode on constant capture for her runs, with the very occasional 3 or 4 sec delay
* Sandra is using 10s capture and has longer pauses in data retrieval of several minutes at a time (auto-pause?)
* Mimi's data sets are therefore an order of magnitude denser than Sandra's
* Mimi’s cadence blips of 200+ spm are likely just random c*ck ups in data capture - they disappear if you smooth out to a 10s capture rate (I was trying to contact her crew to ask her to set a second watch to 10s capture for one of her runs to confirm this, but unfortunately it was too late)
* You probably don’t see them for Sandra because they get averaged out
Very good writeup and is very reasonable. But I need to point out a few things off the top of my head:
-I am NOT Derek Murphy of Marathon Investigations. I have no part in running Marathon Investigations and only know Derek from some email communications I initiated. Why do people keep thinking I'm Derek Murphy?
-Sandra uses Garmin watches with Smart Recording which records the data evey ~8-10 seconds to save memory but it is not smoothed , so I don't think your assumption to apply an 11 second smoothing to Mimi's cadence data is correct. A more correct approach would be to take every 8 or 10th value of Mimi's cadence data, which would mean different results.
https://support.garmin.com/faqSearch/en-CA/faq/content/s4w6kZmbmK0P6l20SgpW28-Benford's law for distribution of digits, that's a very interesting law. I will have to address that in the next version of my spoofing tool. There is a much easier way to see my spoofed data is spoofed, simply plot the unsmoothed cadence. You will see my oscillations in the unsmoothed cadence are way too big and regular. I'm surprised no one caught that yet. It's something I'll fix in future versions.
-The spoofing is not to say that it is exactly what is happening with Mimi. The spoofing came about because URC was saying only the Strava data matters and I wanted to show why ALL the evidence matters including the GPS trackers.
-I agree that the Strava data is very likely real life recorded data.
-We can end all of this if only Mimi and her team would release their full videos.
-You have some mad R skills.
So far today wrote:
what is this drivel? wrote:Where is all this research?
"Stupid Runner" has posted the best analysis of Mimi yet. I'm waiting to see your research.
That research 'proves' Mimi ran faster than Sandy even though the 5-mile splits prove she did not.
Show us.
Cover blown ~ wrote:
what is this drivel? wrote:Where is all this research?
"Stupid Runner" has posted the best analysis of Mimi yet. I'm waiting to see your research.
Stupid Runner, Them apples...., and "what is this drivel?" are all the same person.
Sorry, not the same person. Only a complete idiot would think that Sam is anyone other than Sam.
P.s you're still a cowardly dick.
Scam_Watcheroo wrote:
-You have some mad R skills.
But he determined that Mimi is faster than Sandy. What he needs to do is look at the data and then realize it needs to be analyzed as two sets of data; before the 'vacation' day, and after the 'vacation' day. That should be obvious to anyone who analyzes data. I do not claim to be a data analyst but for my PhD I did do regression analysis on experimental data--a very long time ago. I designed and built the experiment. Collected the data. And analyzed the data. When there is an unexpected change in the data set you always split the data into parts, then analyze the parts, and then try to figure out why the change occurred. If you cannot figure out why then you run the experiment again.