Why are legitimate ultra runners not outraged by this?
Why are legitimate ultra runners not outraged by this?
Ultra guy wrote:
Why are legitimate ultra runners not outraged by this?
They are.
Amy forever wrote:
Ultra guy wrote:Why are legitimate ultra runners not outraged by this?
They are.
Who?
Who?
Nobody you would know, if you are not running ultras.
Ultra gal wrote:
Ultra guy wrote:Who?
These people:
Yep, THESE people.
Old Woman wrote:
I'm actually getting into it with her on Twitter. Like others in this genre of runners who claim certain impossible feats, she's skirting around the data issue.
I skimmed her website as well and from I could see there's no evidence of the 53 in 53 run either. Just seems to be a lot of heavily airbrushed photos alongside her claims of being a model and professional speaker. Definitely fits the narcissistic profile of other cheaters. Only problem? No double letters in her name. ;)
Thank you for challenging her on Twitter. I wasn't brave enough to do this because I would find it difficult to write in measured tones and would stand accused of misogyny by the shills.
Your language is perfect, and you swatted away the accusation of not being supportive with aplomb.
Well done.
Her website laughably still says:
"Official Guinness World Record* set at The Trafford Centre, Manchester.
8 September 2016.
*Awaiting official Guinness verification."
Lol. Could be a long wait 😂😂
[quote]I can't believe 3 years ago today I set off on 53 and adventure, an adventure of an absolute life time! One that changed my life forever.
What Amy doesn't know yet is that her life might change again.
Are there any news from the people who are looking into the charity fraud?
This 53 Foundation is probably a very little but fun fish to fry.
Yeah, well done Kathy and you elicited this from her:
"Amyhughes.53
@53Marathons
Replying to @kathyldaniels @jbeaton1993 and 2 others
With Guinness Kathy. I will be doing this challenge again also feel free to come and support/help
9:57 AM - 6 Aug 2017"
And Amy keeps saying GWR aren't questioning the mileage, well no Amy, but we and others are. GWR aren't, but only because they haven't got past first base with the witness issue, so why would they check other required criteria? Perhaps you can ask her that on Twitter.
And no Amy, your boyfriend wasn't an "extra witness", he was the only one.
"Amyhughes.53
@53Marathons
Replying to @kathyldaniels @jbeaton1993 and 3 others
Because my boyfriend was an extra witness. If you read their statement it states this, NOT because of mileage! Thanks
10:10 AM - 6 Aug 2017"
I knew there was something I didn't like about Amy Hughes but I just couldn't put my finger on it. I've now realized that Amy Hughes does the exact same stupid mouth gapping open fake surprised look that Kelly Roberts from Oiselle does for her selfies. Both are insincere.
Another day another scammer wrote:
[quote]I can't believe 3 years ago today I set off on 53 and adventure, an adventure of an absolute life time! One that changed my life forever.
What Amy doesn't know yet is that her life might change again.
Are there any news from the people who are looking into the charity fraud?
This 53 Foundation is probably a very little but fun fish to fry.
Amy .. Amy .. Amy .. what a tangled web we weave ....
I am noticing a lot of Norwegian supporters signing up for Amy's petition.
But with just 2364 signatures right now, it doesn't look like that she has a lot of supporters.
John Hawryluk
@jbeaton1993
Replying to @kathyldaniels @53Marathons and 3 others
Don't think the issue ever was data being incorrect - GWR accepted that. It's about her BF being down as a witness.
11:10 AM - 6 Aug 2017
Yes and no John Hawryluk, yes, the issue so far for GWR hasn't been about "data being incorrect" for reasons stated above, no, GWR haven't "accepted that" (data) because they haven't had any need to look at it.
Anderson Cooper wrote:
I am noticing a lot of Norwegian supporters signing up for Amy's petition.
But with just 2364 signatures right now, it doesn't look like that she has a lot of supporters.
If one was so inclined, you could sign her petition and put a comment in there saying GWR needs to review the video evidence from the live stream with a link to the JustPasteIt summary. A way to be passive-aggressive.
Ultra gal wrote:
Ultra guy wrote:Who?
These people:
https://m.facebook.com/groups/259647654139161?view=permalink&id=1187958507974733https://m.facebook.com/groups/259647654139161?view=permalink&id=1190793164357934
Nobody worth a sh1t is on there. Just a bunch of gallow walking hobby walkers.
Again, I ask why are no ultra runners talking about this?
Another day another scammer wrote:
[quote]I can't believe 3 years ago today I set off on 53 and adventure, an adventure of an absolute life time! One that changed my life forever.
What Amy doesn't know yet is that her life might change again.
Are there any news from the people who are looking into the charity fraud?
This 53 Foundation is probably a very little but fun fish to fry.
Every thread where there is a charity involved people come on here to say that there is fraud and they will be investigated. However, it never happens.
Rob Young
Dave Reading
The twitter guy who ran 50 marathon in 50 days (can't remember his name)
This gal
Just to name a few
When are people going to stop posting these hollow threats?
@53Marathons wrote:
I will be doing this challenge again also feel free to come and support/help
9:57 AM - 6 Aug 2017"
He's probably having a nap, but someone needs to wake Laz up and ask him to get his boots on the ground.
Laz would love to spend 20 hours a day in a shopping mall watching Amy on a treadmill.
Do they allow smoking in British shopping malls?
Yes and No. wrote:
John Hawryluk
@jbeaton1993
Replying to @kathyldaniels @53Marathons and 3 others
Don't think the issue ever was data being incorrect - GWR accepted that. It's about her BF being down as a witness.
11:10 AM - 6 Aug 2017
Yes and no John Hawryluk, yes, the issue so far for GWR hasn't been about "data being incorrect" for reasons stated above, no, GWR haven't "accepted that" (data) because they haven't had any need to look at it.
Incorrect. GWR has been contacted and the data was accepted, but witness was not.