One might assume that since a number of these ultra runners and marathoners run many of the same events, it's likely a plausible conclusion that they "friend" each other from time to time without really "knowing" the person they are friending. I am guilty of that myself. I would not be surprised if at some point, PM and DF were possibly FB friends at one time as well. This whole thing makes me question how easily I've either accepted or requested a FB Friend request, and how many times I've liked a post that popped up on my timeline. Are any of them going to come back and make someone question my credibility or motives should something happen down the road? Only time will tell I guess, but the main thing I keep in mind is that as long as I'm telling the truth, it really doesn't matter. The truth is the truth and if the truth hurts, then so be it.
When you strip off all the colorful posts and "he said, she said" statements, what this really all boils down to is the fact that someone has raised some valid questions regarding the fact that this individual recorded a chip timed marathon for an event that she was not witnessed actually running (was present), and also posted an almost identical chip time for another person who we know was not present on that same date. In fact, he was in another state running another marathon at that time.
As we all know, chip timing systems require that athletes wear a small, lightweight chip that identifies them as they cross electronic mats. The chip is typically worn on the shoelace or on an ankle bracelet. The chip timing electronically handles the task of collecting and processing results at the end of the race.
What explanation does PM or anyone authorized to speak on her behalf have as to how this could have happened and how or why did she feel it was appropriate to do this in the first place? I think this is a valid and fair question. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that at the very least, one might assume that she either wore two chips and crossed the mat at the start, and then at some point, crossed the finish line again with them. If she was not running the actual course during the day of the event, did she then remove the chips to avoid accidentally triggering the system? and at some point, put them on again and cross the finish line? Or, even worse, did she just direct the timing company to enter fabricated times that she provided?
My guess is that a review of any photographs that may have been taken that day might may hold that answer. The person who raised the question in the first place stated that he knew for a fact she wasn't running the course during the event, so I'm going to assume that's not being debated. In fact, it was reported by someone that she admitted to running the event in question on a totally different day.
I'm sorry, but that would be like Jeff Gordon driving the Indianapolis 500 on a Thursday when the rest of the participants drove it on Saturday when it was scheduled. In my mind, if the race isn't run on the day the event is scheduled and when all the other race participants are running the race, it's just a practice run and shouldn't count as a sanctioned run and her times be certified or count.
This really comes down to the question of credibility and being able to trust the information being provided by this, or any other race director out there. After all, isn't the responsibility of the race director to demonstrate honest communication and not make false or misleading statements related to any race he or she is putting on. Furthermore, is it not the primary responsibility of the race director, in coordination with the timing company or persons responsible for the timing of the event, to ensure that the results are indeed honest and accurate in order to maintain the overall fairness and credibility of the race? Anything less is falling short of their duties and responsibilities as a race director in my opinion.
So my questions would be
1. As a race director, how do you expect to maintain the credibility and fairness of a race you are putting on when you yourself don't have to abide by the same rules as those who are entrusting you with their money and results?
2. Once an allegation of cheating has been raised, as a race director, at what point do you have to make a decision wether to DQ a participant or invalidate their results in a race due to either eyewitness accounts or questionable timing results? I'm going to assume that a decision would be based on a preponderance of the evidence. At what point does the scale tip? 51/49 or beyond a reasonable doubt?
3. And the hard question at this point would be that if the governing body of any organization, sponsor, race or club has no interest in maintaing the credibility of the sport, organization, sponsor or event when allegations of this nature are brought to their attention, why should we even care?
I choose to think that the running community as a whole, will help police and govern itself. I'd rather be part of the solution, not the problem. That's why I've asked the questions I have and avoided getting drawn in to the mud slinging. This isn't a court of law, so for me, it's about the court of public opinion at this point, and until we hear her explanation, unfortunately, the questions and doubts remain in my mind.