London Marathon Unfairly Removes Runner's Results

Great job catching this guy. Just goes to show that even across the pond, cheaters can't escape the wrath of LRC.

so basically doubler is saying that at Mile 1.2 the expected rough pace for that point for a 51 minute 10k would have been 8:12 so at Mile 1.2 the time would be about 1.2 x 8:12 or about 9:50.

So if the kid started 16 minutes after those runners he could not have been there.

Good reasoning Doubler.

So either:

a) that is not a picture of the kid

b) that is not the location

c) the chip is wrong about the kids start time

d) the chip is wrong about not passing 5k

e) the kid started on time, then cut the course after the 1.2 mark, missing the 5k

WHO cuts a course before 5k????? That defies any reason.

I think this kid is innocent. Just my vote.

I find the "chips don't lie" posts humorous. I've never had a chip fail to read in the middle of a race, but I've had plenty of failures at the start, usually because the systems got overloaded with all the runners.

More in line with the matter at hand though, I also had one where my 1:38 HM was reported as a 1:18 HM (I was tempted to keep my mouth shut on that one), and after I called it to the timer's attention we looked through and determined that my chip registered correctly a couple seconds after the start, but then ~twenty minutes in "my chip" registered at the start again - even though I was 2.5 miles up course at the time. We don't know why it registered, but our working theory was that somebody wandering around the start had a chip from some past race still on their shoe, and it happened to have the same ID as mine.

The relevant thing in my story though is that the timer had *ALL* the times my chip had appeared at the start in the computer, but by default it used the *last* time at the start. And so when I questioned the result they were able to manually look at all the times present in the system and choose the right one. I wonder if London does that, and if so, if they have multiple "start" records for him.

mathimus wrote:...WHO cuts a course before 5k????? That defies any reason...

Especially at London, given the course configuration. The first 6 miles is essentially out to the east for almost 3 miles, then turn north briefly (maybe 1/4 mile), then back to the west for 4 miles. The start to mile 2.9 and miles 3.1 to 6.5 are pretty much parallel. If you're going to cut the course in this area, you'd cut directly north from like the 1/2 mile mark to mile 5.5. If there's photographic evidence and chip data for him in the 2-3 mile range, and video evidence of him near the start (I believe I've seen both those items). If you cut the course after the mile mark you're only cutting out maybe 2 miles, something in that range. For some people that may be worth it to get under a time they need (BQ), but for this kid, deep in the pack, doesn't seem to be any point.

Clearly this is a case of chip malfunction at the start. Given the odd chip data, it's right for London to investigate. As an RD, if I see someone with these same splits at my race I remove that runner from the results too. But as soon as the evidence is brought to my attention that makes it plausible that the runner is not at fault, they get put back in.

You are messed up. You want to disqualify someone that completes an entire race (MR in Boston), but then want to reinstate course cutters?

This makes no sense.

So dxcoach - why dont you then FINALLY have the nads to DQ Kip Litton from your Vermont Marathon (2009 was it?). Overwhelming evidence was presented to you including video that there was ZERO plausible explanation for his time.

Now whenever anyone asks him his marathon PR, he proudly can say, "Yeah, I ran 2:49 at Vermont." What a friggin joke.. What are you afraid of?

Pretty obvious the kid didn't cheat and London's electronic timing is up shit creek without a paddle.

So....if the start mat is wrong how many thousands in London have been given faster times than actual?

Good work double.

Londons can of worms wrote:

Pretty obvious the kid didn't cheat and London's electronic timing is up shit creek without a paddle.

So....if the start mat is wrong how many thousands in London have been given faster times than actual?

Good work double.

Exactly. Every runner in London should have 15 minutes added to their time. Doubler has uncovered a giant conspiracy by the Brits to get BQ times. It is thousands of runners. Thousands.

This is bigger than the Beatles.

Someone looked up Strava data. Identified a 3rd runner..from the comments

OK so I'm bored on a Sat afternoon.

bib 18384 Strava activity

https://www.strava.com/activities/555491265

bib 27509 Strava activity

https://www.strava.com/activities/555601971

The 2 runner's gps has the photo at 2.125 km and 10:12:50 AM

I'm just curious how VLM defends their timing system 'Ryan was moving close to light speed which reversed the polarity of the neutron flow causing to the reverse 4 minutes'

Sesamoiditis wrote:

Doubler wrote:

that split is calculated based on him starting 16:30 after the gun.

There's a photo of him at 1.2 miles next to a runner that hit the 5k mat at 27 minutes (gun time)

If Ryan started 16 minutes late, he would not have been even with this trimmer at mile 1.2. This proves that the chip start time is incorrect.

I don't see the kid in the picture you posted at 1.2 miles. He was wearing a yellow shirt right?

What is a "trimmer"?

He's been reinstated.

http://www.marathoninvestigation.com/2016/05/ryan-lee-cleared-of-cheating-at-london.html

doubler wrote:

He's been reinstated.

http://www.marathoninvestigation.com/2016/05/ryan-lee-cleared-of-cheating-at-london.html

good for him. the right result.

however, what do you think this means in terms of chip timing verification?

seems this proves the chips are fallible

which is problematic for a lot of your accusations that rely on chip data

no reprieve for Rossi however

Chip Error wrote:

doubler wrote:

He's been reinstated.

http://www.marathoninvestigation.com/2016/05/ryan-lee-cleared-of-cheating-at-london.html

good for him. the right result.

however, what do you think this means in terms of chip timing verification?

seems this proves the chips are fallible

which is problematic for a lot of your accusations that rely on chip data

no reprieve for Rossi however

I always try to rely on more than just the chip time to reach a conclusion.

Had someone emailed me this one privately and had I investigated without that photo, I would have thought he cheated, and reported the result.. The only thing that didn't make sense was motivation. Why cut the first 6 miles, and then run 20?

But, yes, I would probably need more than mat data going forward. Ryan had no prior results..if there was someone with prior history of cutting, or a 5 hour marathoner that runs a 3:30:00 and missed mats, I'd still be comfortable making a determination to report to an RD - but would need overwhelming additional evidence to warrant an article.