Paul Ryan's marathon

Seriously, of all the things Romney/Ryan and Obama/Biden have lied about, this is the one that got you guys up in arms.

This country is going down the drain.

HEY ROJO. WHAT THE HELL IS A "LIB?"

i'll tell you what it is...it is a term that didn't exist until Rush Limbaugh cooked it up to pejoratively refer to people that vote democratic.

you have a lot of nerve to whine a bout being made the victim on this thread.

you have made a career out exposing dishonest runners and now that one is a republican VP candidate you stand up for him. and yes, giving him the benefit of the doubt is doing just that.

Yeah, I'm convinced.

I'm not a die-hard runner. I did one marathon, back in 1981, in Montreal. And I'm super-proud of it, and know my time of 3:43 very well. And no way I'd ever call it 2:43, I mean jeez, I'm at least good enough to know and respect that difference!

Here's some stuff Obama has done.

http://whatthef_uckhasobamadonesofar.com/

Remove the underscore

Signed financial reform law prohibiting banks from engaging in proprietary trading (trading the bank's own money to turn a profit, often in conflict with their customers' interests)

Of course it affects you. It was one of the major factors behind the current financial crisis.

Do they mention that Obama has removed more Federal gun laws than Bush did in his 8 years in charge?

Earth to LR morons - running or not running a marathon is not a political act. Running fast, slow, dnf'ing, or lying about your finish - none of these outcomes are political. Did Ryan (or Kerry before him) embarrass themselves by lying? Yep, obviously. Is Palin's pr of 3:59 impressive as hell for a politico, damn straight. Is any of this political or comparable to some ginned up tax policy/legislation where the numbers don't make sense? No, it isn't.

Keep it to running, focus on your own running. Life is short, make it fun.

The Toronto Globe and Mail has picked up the story:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/the-hot-button/gop-running-mate-paul-ryans-marathon-time-not-as-fast-as-he-claims/article4516447/

~ wrote:

Earth to LR morons - running or not running a marathon is not a political act. Running fast, slow, dnf'ing, or lying about your finish - none of these outcomes are political. ...

I think a blatant, public lie about something so easily verified is troubling at best. This wasn't political spin or mincing words which all politicians do. This is the behavior of a compulsive liar.

I can understand voting for the Republicans if you agree with their platform - that's the nature of party politics. But anyone who rationalizes or defends Ryan's lying exposes themselves as a brainwashed dupe. This guy has a few screws loose.

Any progress on the climbing claims?

Latest new yorker article below. There is new information! The main conclusion is that most (but not all) people the reporter contacted who ran Grandma's in 1990 and finished right around Ryan said they finished in four hours and something or around four hours or some variation. The exception is one guy who said 3:30, because he had run several marathons: one years at Grandma's he ran 3:30 and his PR is 3:10. The guy who remembered his own time incorrectly also offered Rojo's theory (and they link to the thread!). The New Yorker is bringing Letsrun to the masses.

In defense of Paul Ryan, he did run 241 minutes. So actually a little less than 250 something.

Were you guys thinking he meant 2 hours and 50 something minutes?

Querfeldein wrote:

I'm afraid he will get away with it, because most Americans won't hear about this, let alone appreciate that the difference between "a two hour and fifty-something" and "a rounded four hours", is about as great as a degree from a community college is from a degree from Carnegie Mellon. Good for you if you've gone to college, and good for you if you've finished a marathon in any time. But lying about your laurels for political gains should make anyone question what else you're lying about right now.

Easily explained error: If he actually remembered what his watch said incorrectly (3:5x) it would be just under 4, but he remembered the 3 (which is what he saw)and said just under 3, when it was just under 4. This is like Obama and his 57 states of the USA.

Not my real name wrote:

I blame the Romney campaign staff for this lie. The minute they selected him they started pushing this myth of his athletic and mental superiority. They cynically hoped that it would get them more female votes if they could portray him has handsome, ruggedly athletic and smart.

Ryan felt pressured by the campaign staff to push this rugged mythos any chance he got. If you notice the interviewer never asked him about his marathon times directly. Ryan offered up this tidbit himself.

Why should we believe someone who does not use his real name?

Libertarian wrote:

I just wish we had a choice OTHER than Swedish style socialism or the Christian taliban. That's what I think defines the "Libs" and "Cons" we now put up with.

Yes, those poor Swedes and their lack of personal freedom and low standard of living. Don't want to be like them for sure.

Steve Martin wrote:

Easily explained error: If he actually remembered what his watch said incorrectly (3:5x) it would be just under 4, but he remembered the 3 (which is what he saw)and said just under 3, when it was just under 4.

This explanation doesn't hold.

The interviewer's reaction was "Holy smokes!" - and then Ryan replied: "I was fast when I was younger, yeah."

He would have been fast (top 4 %), if he scored a sub-3:00 marathon - but there's no way he couldn't remember that he finished in the back of the pack.

This will have no effect on the election.

Only people here and Runner's World care about this.

And those that were leaning Romney are changing their votes for marathon-gate.

lenny wrote:

~ wrote:

Earth to LR morons - running or not running a marathon is not a political act. Running fast, slow, dnf'ing, or lying about your finish - none of these outcomes are political. ...

I think a blatant, public lie about something so easily verified is troubling at best. This wasn't political spin or mincing words which all politicians do. This is the behavior of a compulsive liar.

I can understand voting for the Republicans if you agree with their platform - that's the nature of party politics. But anyone who rationalizes or defends Ryan's lying exposes themselves as a brainwashed dupe. This guy has a few screws loose.

We're in agreement here. It's certainly troubling, and more than a bit disappointing if you thought the guy was cut from a different cloth than the rest. But the urge to defend this as some kind of honest error or distant hazy memory - by runners that know better - can only be explained when seen through a political lens. Comparing the importance of a false marathon PR to a crumby bill co-sponsored in Congress is a deliberate effort to create a political debate from something that is apolitical. The guy lied, he has human faults. It's not political, stop trying to defend him.

So I'm seeing headlines everywhere that Sarah Palin's time is faster than Paul Ryan's. But with a difference of less than 2 minutes I'm not so sure.

2005 Humpy's Marathon had just over 200 participants, so it would definitely start in a single wave at gun time and I assume Sarah Palin's finishing time is gun time, or if it is chip time there would be very little difference. But the results page I've seen for the 1990 Grandma's Marathon only gives a single finishing time for each runner. Did they use timing chips in that race or is this gun time? With a field of 4201 runners there definitely would have been a staggered start with Ryan at least a few waves back. Is it possible that this could account for a 2 minute difference?

Regardless, I still think that Ryan is a lying sack of shit, and his performance was very unimpressive for a 20 year old. As a runner though it bothers me when I see these articles in every news outlet with a headline that could be false.

No chips in use anywhere in the world in 1990.

I don't know whether Grandma's used a corral or "line up by your number" system, but I would guess not, and I feel certain they wouldn't have used "waves."

But somebody must know the answer.

The letsrun front page still offers that canard about "chip time," even after I emailed them that there could have been no chip time in 1990. I'm sure I wasn't the only one who alerted them.