Women runs 520 miles on treadmill in 7 days but doesn't get WR as Guinness says her witness doesn't count

Won't happen. wrote:

Well done. wrote:

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"

This will be interesting if it happens, but I can see it now, the trolls, haters, cyber bullies got to me so I'm now suffering from PTSD and not mentally and physically up to it, you know, all the usual stuff you hear from the Reading's, etc.

If it does happen it'll be a shambolic farce just like Dave Reading's LEJOG world record attempt.

I'm not convinced she can do it, but I think you guys are greatly overstated the difficulty of this stunt run.

Just Wrong wrote:

Incorrect. GWR has been contacted and the data was accepted, but witness was not.

Well make it just right and link us to an authoritative source.

adjective: authoritative

1. able to be trusted as being accurate or true; reliable.

Give it up wrote:

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?

If you read my Dave & Terrie investigation summary, you can see that I did investigate the charity fraud & donations and I did find video proof they tampered with the WWTW charity buckets. But when I started asking about them and calling out the lies I was told by WWTW, WWTW blocked all communication from me. It wasn't from a lack of effort or a hollow threat. I am serious about that issue and got stonewalled.

Ultra guy wrote:

Again, I ask why are no ultra runners talking about this?

Laz commented on her Facebook page. Does he count?

Just Wrong wrote:

Incorrect. GWR has been contacted and the data was accepted, but witness was not.

How can they accept the data if they don't accept the witness, it doesn't make sense?

Pliny wrote:

I'm not convinced she can do it, but I think you guys are greatly overstated the difficulty of this stunt run.

Looks like you've volunteered to do it.

Somebody wake Laz up wrote:

Ultra guy wrote:

Again, I ask why are no ultra runners talking about this?

Laz commented on her Facebook page. Does he count?

https://imgur.com/gallery/Eo5uGhttps://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=659266797530477&id=188981147892380

I still say Laz's 'live' commentary on the RY fraud was one of the epic moments in LR history (with credit to U list, obviously).

Interesting, so they don't accept the witness, but they accept the data that the witness they don't accept was recording? Yeah right, my arse.

It doesn't make sense. wrote:

Just Wrong wrote:

Incorrect. GWR has been contacted and the data was accepted, but witness was not.

How can they accept the data if they don't accept the witness, it doesn't make sense?

if amy is gonna do this again i'll be happy to be there as long as she runs in a bikini. shes hot

Well thanks, Well Done. Remember, not all heroes wear capes. LOL.

When she "sweetly" asked for my support on her next quest, part of me thought: "sure, I'll happily come out and run alongside you the whole time to show you up." Then I remembered that ultrarunning is definitely not my thing.(Seriously, props to the real ultra runners out there. The thought of going over 26.2 miles makes my stomach hurt!)

If she replies again, I'll press her failure to meet the witness requirement before any mileage was presumably even looked at.

And to another poster, sorry I forgot your handle, the Kelly Roberts mouth open thing is spot on. Can't stand that one either.

Make it just right wrote:

Just Wrong wrote:

Incorrect. GWR has been contacted and the data was accepted, but witness was not.

Well make it just right and link us to an authoritative source.

adjective: authoritative

1. able to be trusted as being accurate or true; reliable.

Is GWR authoritative enough, idiot?

noun: idiot

1. You

Scam_Watcheroo wrote:

Give it up wrote:

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?

If you read my Dave & Terrie investigation summary, you can see that I did investigate the charity fraud & donations and I did find video proof they tampered with the WWTW charity buckets. But when I started asking about them and calling out the lies I was told by WWTW, WWTW blocked all communication from me. It wasn't from a lack of effort or a hollow threat. I am serious about that issue and got stonewalled.

Then you just quit?

Just Wrong wrote:

Make it just right wrote:

Well make it just right and link us to an authoritative source.

adjective: authoritative

1. able to be trusted as being accurate or true; reliable.

Is GWR authoritative enough, idiot?

noun: idiot

1. You

GWR is an authoritative source. GWR has used its authority to reject the evidence submitted in support of Amy Hughes' claim to have run 521 miles in 7 days on a treadmill. Public investigation into Amy's claims has uncovered evidence of cheating and lying and potential financial conflicts of interest with her charity.

Give it up wrote:

Then you just quit?

I was planning what to do next when this thread came up. I don't plan on giving up on the charity aspect of the Reading investigation. When the right time comes, I will make some noise. I don't plan to let either the Readings or WWTW go that easily with the demonstrable lies they told me for whatever reason they think it was a good idea to lie to me. But right now, I'm giving the Reading investigation a pause until the appropriate time.

Just Right . wrote:

Public investigation into Amy's claims has uncovered evidence of cheating and lying and potential financial conflicts of interest with her charity.

On the topic of conflict of interest, Amy Hughes and Dave Keighley have repeatedly used the social media accounts of their 53 Foundation to promote their personal campaign against Guinness. This is also another violation of charity laws because they are the trustees and charities are not supposed to be used for personal gain.

clear from vids that Amy could do this. Let down by the boyfriend. Amy, learn from this. Next attempt Amy get someone independant to oversee your effort.

I've figured it out! wrote:

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.

Their insincerity is one of their more redeeming features.

Scam_Watcheroo wrote:

Just Right . wrote:

Public investigation into Amy's claims has uncovered evidence of cheating and lying and potential financial conflicts of interest with her charity.

On the topic of conflict of interest, Amy Hughes and Dave Keighley have repeatedly used the social media accounts of their 53 Foundation to promote their personal campaign against Guinness. This is also another violation of charity laws because they are the trustees and charities are not supposed to be used for personal gain.

What are you doing about it?

Scam_Watcheroo wrote:

Dave Keighley's reply to the evidence of Amy Hughes cheating on Facebook just now:

Dave Keighley

Zzzzz and that's proof! 😂😂

Like · Report · Just now

And then he deleted his reply after just one minute.

https://m.facebook.com/groups/259647654139161?view=permalink&id=1190793164357934

if it wasnt abundantly clear before why Dave Keighley was unacceptable as an independent witness then it sure is now.