For the small portion her pacer Sarah paced after Lone Pine, if you zoom in on the map she’s on the left side of the road. If you zoom in on Ashley’s map for this portion, she’s on the right side of the road.
We've closed this thread to new posts. Please discuss this topic in a new thread given the fact she just won the race outright in 2023. Does that mean that the 2022 cheating allegations definitely have no merit?
-
00
-
No-one demanded Derek "immediately" retract his story, but plenty of people are increasingly peturned by the fact he was happy to amplify thinly sourced rumors in an error-strewn article almost immediately after the race, but now wants infinite time to shore up his story. If he doesn't want to drip feed articles now because he doesn't want to be accused of fishing for clicks why did he post the initial article when he did? If you go on to the fb comments (which he has plenty of time to engage in apparently), the answer is now that only by posting the rumors first could he entice witnesses to come forward. He's basically admitting the first article was a fishing expedition.
I'm still not ruling out that she cheated, I haven't at any point in this thread, but Derek's refusal to grapple with criticism of his approach here is really ugly. In his constant defence of his actions and refusal to even consider he's in the wrong he honestly reminds me of his targets.
98 -
constrained wrote:
I'm beginning to find it suspect that an extremely vocal minority of folks are demanding that MI immediately retract its story. If I was the accused and I was innocent I'd invite MI to conduct an exhaustive investigation of my performance. Absolutely no stone unturned. I'd be confident knowing that the evidence would support my result, and that anything short of an exhaustive investigation would leave doubt.
If i won a race and a bunch of mouth-breatheing "analysts" started calling it into question, I'd pay them about as much attention as I did to the dump I just flushed down the toilet.
96 -
Full Story Please wrote:
No-one demanded Derek "immediately" retract his story, but plenty of people are increasingly peturned by the fact he was happy to amplify thinly sourced rumors in an error-strewn article almost immediately after the race, but now wants infinite time to shore up his story. If he doesn't want to drip feed articles now because he doesn't want to be accused of fishing for clicks why did he post the initial article when he did? If you go on to the fb comments (which he has plenty of time to engage in apparently), the answer is now that only by posting the rumors first could he entice witnesses to come forward. He's basically admitting the first article was a fishing expedition.
I'm still not ruling out that she cheated, I haven't at any point in this thread, but Derek's refusal to grapple with criticism of his approach here is really ugly. In his constant defence of his actions and refusal to even consider he's in the wrong he honestly reminds me of his targets.
That's because he hasn't been relevant in about 4 years, he doesn't know how to analyze ultra events, and this entire story is so out of his scope of knowledge that he'd have to admit he never should have touched in in the first place. Derek analyzes splits and mats, and anything beyond that is beyond his ability to figure out. He's still trying to rescue his legacy after his last big story didn't work out so well.
613 -
bad water. wrote:
For the small portion her pacer Sarah paced after Lone Pine, if you zoom in on the map she’s on the left side of the road. If you zoom in on Ashley’s map for this portion, she’s on the right side of the road.
Go to post #534 on the previous page of this thread, 7 posts previous and there's a picture. It shows pacer on the left side of the road and Paulson on the right.
10 -
bReOt wrote:
Couple random points.
Scott Jurek keeps getting thrown out as one (of many) top end male ultrarunners that no way could Ashley Paulson have run faster than. I would agree, those end splits caught my eye - I downloaded the last several years of Badwater finish/split results - the average of the top 10 finishers over the last several years ran the final 13 miles 50% slower than she did. Now having said that, its only a single data point - just like its another data point to highlight the fact Camille Heron has a faster 100-mile and 24-hour result than Scott Jurek.
Second, on stride length, someone else analyzed the time her watch was on after the finish line when she was just standing around (before she realized to hit stop), and just about the entire difference in stride length average stems from part of the data.
With super shoes , she can. She legally doped here, end of thread.
35 -
have not read wrote:
You ask "why release the data" if you cheated. I have not read all of this and so I have no idea if she cheated or not, but a lot of other cheaters have released their "data" thinking it would help them, and it didn't. Also, I think the idea is all you need to do is provide some confusion and doubt.
But, really, as a person coming in at the end I'll say this all I want to say is - it seems significant to me, in and of itself, that her "data" is just unusual as compared to everyone else's data. Why is it always the people who are accused of cheating who, when they provide "data", it's weird. If I downloaded my garmin data it would look like everyone else's garmin data. That fact alone, that hers is different, is suspect.
And yes, every now and again my garmin will do something weird, but not continuously over an entire day and 135km.
This thread actually makes me wonder if it is even worth releasing GPS data because so few people understand it at all and twist very explainable data into somehow being proof of cheating. It's happened at least a couple of times in this thread.
51 -
Derek is a clown wrote:
Full Story Please wrote:
No-one demanded Derek "immediately" retract his story, but plenty of people are increasingly peturned by the fact he was happy to amplify thinly sourced rumors in an error-strewn article almost immediately after the race, but now wants infinite time to shore up his story. If he doesn't want to drip feed articles now because he doesn't want to be accused of fishing for clicks why did he post the initial article when he did? If you go on to the fb comments (which he has plenty of time to engage in apparently), the answer is now that only by posting the rumors first could he entice witnesses to come forward. He's basically admitting the first article was a fishing expedition.
I'm still not ruling out that she cheated, I haven't at any point in this thread, but Derek's refusal to grapple with criticism of his approach here is really ugly. In his constant defence of his actions and refusal to even consider he's in the wrong he honestly reminds me of his targets.
That's because he hasn't been relevant in about 4 years, he doesn't know how to analyze ultra events, and this entire story is so out of his scope of knowledge that he'd have to admit he never should have touched in in the first place. Derek analyzes splits and mats, and anything beyond that is beyond his ability to figure out. He's still trying to rescue his legacy after his last big story didn't work out so well.
You say it much more eloquently than I would. What happened to Derek stopping and going away like he posted before on here and elsewhere?
14 -
San Diego Hobby Jogger wrote:
With super shoes , she can. She legally doped here, end of thread.
Honest question -- Is the explanation that simple? Have super shoes significantly changed the ultra landscape such that this performance is entirely plausible because of the shoes? I can reasons for why it's that simple.
31 -
Derek is a clown wrote:
constrained wrote:
I'm beginning to find it suspect that an extremely vocal minority of folks are demanding that MI immediately retract its story. If I was the accused and I was innocent I'd invite MI to conduct an exhaustive investigation of my performance. Absolutely no stone unturned. I'd be confident knowing that the evidence would support my result, and that anything short of an exhaustive investigation would leave doubt.
If i won a race and a bunch of mouth-breatheing "analysts" started calling it into question, I'd pay them about as much attention as I did to the dump I just flushed down the toilet.
Can't say I disagree. I'm honestly surprised she even responded, except I suppose it is possible that because she makes a lot of hay out of her own internet presence (Instagram, etc. creating her personal brand that she parlays into the iFit gig, and so on), she probably felt she had to create a counter-weight so that if you Googled "Ashley Paulson" you could find her denial in addition to the theories against her. ...also, she probably has some agent telling her all publicity is good publicity, so even if she knows she didn't cheat, she might as well keep the ball rolling on this regardless.
40 -
If I know I ran a legit race, I'd welcome any "investigation". What's there to hide? Why people demanding we drop this is beyond understanding. The data is suspect and I've used an older model Garmin on thousands of courses since 2016 and have never had wonky data, even when the battery died or lost a signal or whatever can go wrong. Sorry, fellas, this looks really bad. I'm sure the veteran Badwater runners will come out and say something.
64 -
I believe in her. If we can’t trust edited data for a runner who has previously drugged and cheated, who can we trust? Badwater is starting to look bad.
118 -
bring it on wrote:
If I know I ran a legit race, I'd welcome any "investigation". What's there to hide? Why people demanding we drop this is beyond understanding. The data is suspect and I've used an older model Garmin on thousands of courses since 2016 and have never had wonky data, even when the battery died or lost a signal or whatever can go wrong. Sorry, fellas, this looks really bad. I'm sure the veteran Badwater runners will come out and say something.
Let's round up and call 2016 years ago - let's round up again and call it 2,200 days. Exactly how many thousands of "courses" did you race in that period?
Everyone who's ever used a GPS watch has had it screw up occasionally - there was a widely reported issue earlier this month that screwed up most everyone running with a Garmin, Sunnto or Polar watches running on a Sony chip.So maybe lie less and then make your point.
33 -
GettingFasterDude wrote:
bad water. wrote:
For the small portion her pacer Sarah paced after Lone Pine, if you zoom in on the map she’s on the left side of the road. If you zoom in on Ashley’s map for this portion, she’s on the right side of the road.
Go to post #534 on the previous page of this thread, 7 posts previous and there's a picture. It shows pacer on the left side of the road and Paulson on the right.
No, that’s from data set 1, which shows Ashley on the left side along with her pacer. The rules require you to be single file on the left side.
On data set 2, her pacer is on the left side, and Ashley is on the far right side of the road.
Also, her marathon PB was at the massively downhill Revel Marathon. Anyone claiming an HM/marathon PB on a massively downhill course gets another strike against them (her pacer included).
63 -
Full Story Please wrote:
bring it on wrote:
If I know I ran a legit race, I'd welcome any "investigation". What's there to hide? Why people demanding we drop this is beyond understanding. The data is suspect and I've used an older model Garmin on thousands of courses since 2016 and have never had wonky data, even when the battery died or lost a signal or whatever can go wrong. Sorry, fellas, this looks really bad. I'm sure the veteran Badwater runners will come out and say something.
Let's round up and call 2016 years ago - let's round up again and call it 2,200 days. Exactly how many thousands of "courses" did you race in that period?
Everyone who's ever used a GPS watch has had it screw up occasionally - there was a widely reported issue earlier this month that screwed up most everyone running with a Garmin, Sunnto or Polar watches running on a Sony chip.
So maybe lie less and then make your point.
I've had a Garmin screw up by over a mile in a Marathon in 2016. It had myself several hundred meters away from where I was. GPS data is not infallible.
21 -
GettingFasterDude wrote:
You can change the settings in a GPS watch to record a data point every second, or to record less data points, to save battery life.
From Garmin support:
“Smart Recording
Smart Recording captures key data points as changes occur in direction, speed, heart rate or elevation. This method is recommended as it saves space on your device and has no negative impact on GPS accuracy. This setting will also be the most beneficial to your battery life.
Every Second Recording
Every Second Recording will capture your activity with slightly higher track fidelity but uses significantly more memory. This setting will impact your battery life the most due to tracking more data points more often.”
According to DC Rainmaker in 2016, the recording setting has no effect on battery life:
Smart recording only records every 3-7 seconds (typically), so I’d lose bit of heart rate data or running data (i.e. cadence). Now in cycling with a power meter, the unit actually always records in 1-second, regardless of what you set it as.
As for battery, nope, zero impact there. The only thing it impacts is storage, but even that is a holdover from the old days. So much so that Garmin’s latest wearable (Vivoactive HR) goes to just 1-second recording, ditching smart recording.20 -
Derek is a clown wrote:
Full Story Please wrote:
No-one demanded Derek "immediately" retract his story, but plenty of people are increasingly peturned by the fact he was happy to amplify thinly sourced rumors in an error-strewn article almost immediately after the race, but now wants infinite time to shore up his story. If he doesn't want to drip feed articles now because he doesn't want to be accused of fishing for clicks why did he post the initial article when he did? If you go on to the fb comments (which he has plenty of time to engage in apparently), the answer is now that only by posting the rumors first could he entice witnesses to come forward. He's basically admitting the first article was a fishing expedition.
I'm still not ruling out that she cheated, I haven't at any point in this thread, but Derek's refusal to grapple with criticism of his approach here is really ugly. In his constant defence of his actions and refusal to even consider he's in the wrong he honestly reminds me of his targets.
That's because he hasn't been relevant in about 4 years, he doesn't know how to analyze ultra events, and this entire story is so out of his scope of knowledge that he'd have to admit he never should have touched in in the first place. Derek analyzes splits and mats, and anything beyond that is beyond his ability to figure out. He's still trying to rescue his legacy after his last big story didn't work out so well.
I don't know, I thought Derek's last article was a real killer.
65 -
bad water. wrote:
GettingFasterDude wrote:
Go to post #534 on the previous page of this thread, 7 posts previous and there's a picture. It shows pacer on the left side of the road and Paulson on the right.
No, that’s from data set 1, which shows Ashley on the left side along with her pacer. The rules require you to be single file on the left side.
On data set 2, her pacer is on the left side, and Ashley is on the far right side of the road.
Also, her marathon PB was at the massively downhill Revel Marathon. Anyone claiming an HM/marathon PB on a massively downhill course gets another strike against them (her pacer included).
Who exactly got a marathon PB in one of the Revel Marathon? Isn't Paulson's 2:40 time ran at the Olympics trial in Atlanta?
10 -
She ran 2:36 at Revel.
10 -
Full Story Please wrote:
No-one demanded Derek "immediately" retract his story, but plenty of people are increasingly peturned by the fact he was happy to amplify thinly sourced rumors in an error-strewn article almost immediately after the race, but now wants infinite time to shore up his story. If he doesn't want to drip feed articles now because he doesn't want to be accused of fishing for clicks why did he post the initial article when he did? If you go on to the fb comments (which he has plenty of time to engage in apparently), the answer is now that only by posting the rumors first could he entice witnesses to come forward. He's basically admitting the first article was a fishing expedition.
I'm still not ruling out that she cheated, I haven't at any point in this thread, but Derek's refusal to grapple with criticism of his approach here is really ugly. In his constant defence of his actions and refusal to even consider he's in the wrong he honestly reminds me of his targets.
Relevant to your post, Derek just wrote this in the comments on the Marathon Investigation Facebook page about Ashley:
Commenter: "After the Frank Meza situation, one would think that you would be a bit more cautious in knee-jerk "reporting."
Derek: "What was knee-jerk about that reporting, there were photos of him riding a bike during a marathon. Or, for that matter…this reporting."
My God, Derek just thinks he is never wrong.
411
What People Are Talking About On LetsRun
No top threads at the moment. Check back soon.