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

Log books exist wrote:

The venue for the record attempt must be open to the general public for the duration of the attempt

Was this mall open to the public 24 hours a day?

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

Yep, you got me there, I'm an idiot, which is why a link to an authoritative source, in this case according to you GWR, is required in black and white so idiots like me can fully understand and accept your assertion that 'GWR has been contacted and the data was accepted'. Can't be that hard can it if you're so sure they have?

1. fool

noun

1. a person who acts unwisely or imprudently; a silly person.

2. fool

verb

trick or deceive (someone); dupe.

Higgle wrote:

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 😂😂

Amy will have her revenge. She will buy out Guinness, and then self-verify her record on their behalf.

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.

Given that the whole ultra community is about half that size, Amy's fan following is HUGE.

Amy and Dave will be back with their stunt running as it's their main source of income.

No stunt running means no way to gain attention for their charity.

No way to gain attention for their charity means no donations.

No donations means no hefty "administrative costs" to be taken out.

Perhaps Amy and Dave will open the books for scrutiny.

Sorry to be skeptical, but there just seems to be so much of this sort of thing going on these days.

Just Wrong wrote:

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

The data was "accepted" as data, but wasn't verified as valid data.

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.

There is no such thing as a "public investigation" per se. If so, do you have a PI license?

More adjectives wrote:

Just Wrong wrote:

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

The data was "accepted" as data, but wasn't verified as valid data.

This is a good point. Every beginning lab worker knows that recording the data (even if faulty) is always the first step.

0053 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.

There is no such thing as a "public investigation" per se. If so, do you have a PI license?

The so-called public investigation is just a bunch of LRC wannabes jumping up and down that they "disproved" something because their echo chamber reflects it ever louder, when in fact none of what they say has been debated in an adversarial manner.

Showdown at noon wrote:

0053 wrote:

There is no such thing as a "public investigation" per se. If so, do you have a PI license?

The so-called public investigation is just a bunch of LRC wannabes jumping up and down that they "disproved" something because their echo chamber reflects it ever louder, when in fact none of what they say has been debated in an adversarial manner.

You sound semi-illiterate.

Showdown at noon wrote:

The so-called public investigation is just a bunch of LRC wannabes jumping up and down that they "disproved" something because their echo chamber reflects it ever louder, when in fact none of what they say has been debated in an adversarial manner.

It's about as reliable as 4chan proving that Seth Rich was bumped off by the Clintons.

I read it out loud and he sounds and comes across as a wanker.

Dave & Amy have already instigated their own Public Investigation, and 2364 change.org petitioners agree with them that Guinness should remove all the irrational obstacles and recognize her 521 mile record.

Nonsensical jargon wrote:

Showdown at noon wrote:

The so-called public investigation is just a bunch of LRC wannabes jumping up and down that they "disproved" something because their echo chamber reflects it ever louder, when in fact none of what they say has been debated in an adversarial manner.

You sound semi-illiterate.

Is that better than semi-literate?

Verbigeration wrote:

Nonsensical jargon wrote:

You sound semi-illiterate.

Is that better than semi-literate?

Slightly worse.

The difference between semi-literate and semi-illiterate becomes more clear when you extend them to hemi-demi-semi-literate vs. hemi-demi-semi-illiterate.

chill wrote:

Yeah, I feel like there are two issues here.

I don't think she deserves the Guinness world record since she didn't follow their rules, but I do think she ran that distance in that time and I think it's impressive af, regardless of whether she at times held on to the bars. This persecution is ridiculous.

The old record was/is helt by a 48 year old woman, and I don't know why it seems so impossible that Amy Hughes could have done a similar thing.

Was the 48 year old woman a stunt runner first and foremost? Did she follow the traditional progression of ultra runners:

1) Set up social media accounts, charities, websites.

2) Figure out possible "challenges" to attempt.

3) Gather sponsorships and supporters.

4) Settle on GWR records because those are broken by ordinary people.

5) Work on publicity for the challeng.

6) Start running, with an emphasis on "tough training" such as mud runs.

7) Train on a treadmill.

I think Amy has the talent to accept the boredom of running on a treadmill for a very long time, at least 7 days including breaks for food and sleep. I'm encouraging her to attempt the record again. In a mall that's open 24 hours a day. With the treadmills set up close to the exit so #1 witness Laz can duck out for a smoke every hour or so.

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.

You mean like the smile in one of the Marathon Investigation stories about Kelly and Oiselle?

I think that's a little harsh. To me Amy comes across as enthusiastic but naive. Kelly Roberts I dislike. Amy doesn't think that runners in road races are suitable subject matter for "funny" selfies.

Are Doublerr, Marathon Investigator, and Scam Watcheroo all the same person?