Did Mike Rossi (viral marathon dad) cheat his way into Boston?

enough evidence for you? wrote:

Dear Ms. McKeever and Committee,

I am writing to you, as well as copying this email to sponsors of the Lehigh Valley Marathon ("LVM"), several local and national news outlets, newspapers and magazines, sporting/running organizations (including the Boston Marathon and its Racing Director), and other social media venues regarding your flawed statement, convoluted logic and perplexing decision not to disqualify Mike Rossi in spite of compelling, if not conclusive, photographic evidence that he did not run 26.2 miles. I realize that the LVM Committee's task was not easy. Most decisions and issues of this nature and magnitude seldom are. In fact, I'm sure you've been inundated by e-mails and phone calls in light of the decision not to disqualify Mike Rossi from the LVM. I share the sentiment of all runners and non-runners alike who expressed their disappointment and shock with the decision. I don't know if there is any room for you to reconsider the decision but you and the LVM Committee were entrusted to uphold the integrity of the race, the spirit of competition and the reliability of the results, especially since the results of this race are often used in an effort to qualify for the Boston Marathon. Sadly however, the statement released on May 29, 2015 by Lisa Walkiewicz on behalf of the LVM Committee demonstrated that you and the LVM Committee failed on all accounts, resulting in the loss of credibility of the race and its directors and a stain not soon forgotten on the sport of running. It is a bit ironic that the LVM advertises that it is the second fastest marathon in the country because that byline has already become the butt of jokes as to the reason why it is such a "fast" marathon.

The statement that "…the Marathon committee concluded that while there is data from Rossi’s participation in other racing events indicating that Rossi’s time may not be accurate, there is not conclusive evidence that his time in the 2014 LVHN Via Marathon is inaccurate" is troubling for several reasons. First, Mike Rossi's LVM time is nowhere near consistent with his other published race results, training logs and social media posts, yet his race time seems to be the only issue that the LVM Committee really considered, although there is another, much more compelling piece of evidence that is discussed below but seemingly without comment in the LVM Committee’s statement. Nevertheless, it appears inconceivable that with only two years of running experience and covering just 1,000 miles in 18 months leading up to the marathon (a fact taken from Mike Rossi's own postings) that he could run the pace that he did given his age and in the weather conditions that were present on the day of the race. The number of training miles just doesn’t equate to a 3:11 marathon time, nor do any of his prior race times or training runs. Moreover, he had run much shorter races with higher per mile times. In fact, his reported a half marathon time of 1:40, equates to a marathon time of 3:32. That is not a few minutes difference, not even a ten minute difference, but a 21 minute difference! Essentially he ran twice the distance and shaved 21 minutes off of his extrapolated half marathon time in very warm, sunny, and humid conditions. By virtue of those numbers, he may be one of the best unheard of (up until now) runners of past 50 years based on that level of improvement coupled with his low number of training miles. Just imagine what he could have accomplished he had started to run 25 years earlier. I am not saying that that level of improvement is impossible, but it is highly improbable given his newness to the sport, his age and the weather conditions on race day. Does that level of improvement really seem consistent with a 46-year old man who hadn't put in the traditional number of training miles per week? Another runner wrote (http://therunnereclectic.com/2015/05/06/race-times-physiology-and-statistics/) the following, which sums it up perfectly. "His 10k, 10M, and half marathon times are all at a slower pace than his alleged marathon PR. This isn’t just unlikely; it is only possible in an alternate universe." Are any of you runners? Does this really pass the smell test?

Look at the times and distances in this table of his races.

http://i.imgur.com/Jlmsy2q.png

. His two half marathon times/pace of 1:40:44/8:34 (4/13/14) and 1:47:03/8:10 (6/8/14) are far above his LVM time and even the interim 3.1 mile race pace times (for drastically shorter races) were at or above his LVM time. Does that really make sense? Have you looked at or considered using the

https://www.mcmillanrunning.com

calculator in your flawed determination that there was not any conclusive evidence?

Second, the statement that "…there is not conclusive evidence that his time in the 2014 LVHN Via Marathon is inaccurate" begs the questions, ones which absolutely need to be addressed and answered. Specifically, is there, and does LVM have, any conclusive evidence that Mike Rossi’s time was accurate or more importantly, that he actually ran the entire 26.2 miles? In addition, what would be considered conclusive evidence? Let's assume for a moment that his time of 3:11 was possible (although highly improbable) and giving him (and you) the benefit of doubt, then the answer to those questions is vital and crucial to this debacle because while your statement that "there is not conclusive evidence that his time in the 2014 LVHN Via Marathon is inaccurate", the following (third) point is undeniably conclusive proof by any standards of any reasonable person that Mike Rossi did not run the entire race and thus, his time is inaccurate.

Third and perhaps the most direct, compelling and incontrovertible piece of evidence of Mike Rossi not running the entire race (and therefore his time is not accurate) is the lack of his pictures among the 18,000+ taken by professional photographers. This is a key piece of evidence that the LVM Committee did not address or mention in its statement. Why is that? The mere fact that the Committee did not even address the absence of photographs of Mike Rossi calls into question the integrity, credibility and thoroughness of the LVM Committee, its findings and its statement. Did the Committee review (all) the photos, not think that anyone would notice that you did not mention anything about the photos in your statement, or did you review every photo and but had no opinion on him missing from the enormous number of photos? Mike Rossi is the only runner out of all the full marathon participants that did NOT have any photos on the course except at the finish line! Think about that for a moment. The photographers took an extraordinary number of photos. There is at least one spot on the course where there is no gap in photos during the period of time he would have been expected to pass by. Mike Rossi could not have been missed had he passed this area. Every other runner is seen here except Mike Rossi. I believe it was determined that there was a six second interval between photos (based on the time stamps in the metadata) that covered 100 meters. Not even Usain Bolt could cover that distance in that time. If you want conclusive proof, look no further than the lack of one single photograph of Mike Rossi except at the finish line. It is unfathomable and absurd to think otherwise or discount this piece of direct, compelling and conclusive evidence. No one can step up and say they didn't see him on the race course and then be able to prove that negative assertion. It is ludicrous. However, the camera can since it caught every other of the over 1,000 full marathon racers at least at one or more spots on the course. Below is spreadsheet of racers and their photographic information.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1o6QNphLQ7ZV_sPSCyaFV4Tm1rmOlol_AO5cxF3Lam-Q/edit?pli=1#gid=720930333

Go to the last tab of the spreadsheet entitled “Top 200 in Bridge Photos”. Every runner has photos except Mike Rossi. Below is a video of all the Top 200 finishers’ photos taken at the first photo checkpoint (spanning about 17 minutes of race time!). Strangely absent is Mike Rossi.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DxKfEiOfGmY

What more conclusive and direct evidence does the LVM Committee need? Again, this begs the questions to which the public and racers/runners (including your sponsors and the Boston Marathon) deserve an answer to. What evidence does the LVM have to support that Mike Rossi ran the entire 26.2 mile race? Why is this not considered conclusive proof? The photographers and their cameras are essentially the timing mats (aka anti-cheating mats) that the LVM did not have in place. It is not like there is not precedence to DQ someone. Other runners have been DQ'd in other races. There is undeniably more evidence that he did not run the entire race (and therefore his time is not accurate) and that his time was not possible than there is that he ran the race because to date, not one piece of evidence, conclusive or otherwise, has been presented by LVM, the Committee or Mike Rossi himself that he ran the entire race thus making his time “accurate”.

Much less important, but still interesting and strong circumstantial evidence that something was amiss, is the fact that Mike Rossi had posted and boasted ad nauseam about every race and training run. After questioning arose about his marathon time being inconsistent with all his other race times and training times, he tried to say that he wasn’t trying in the 20 or so other races he ran (see the link in which he said wasn’t trying

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/-dad-of-the-year--boston-marathon-runner-under-investigation-over-qualification-questions-205004421.html

) in even though his post history, which has been saved says the complete opposite, as can be viewed here

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/36714219/Mike%20Rossi_%20May%202014.pdf

.

Many other postings and information about Mike Rossi can be seen here

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1s0f2sI8FvoD4nFriEngQQXhwBqYbVLq0V5VjI2ARRp4/edit#gid=0

Most compelling is that in every other race, he posted his time and numerous pictures before, during and after the race. In the case of the LVM, a race in which he smashed his PR/personal best by inhuman proportions and qualified for the Boston Marathon, he suddenly becomes modest and barely posts a thing about his incredible time and qualifying for the Boston Marathon. While that is certainly not grounds for a DQ on its own, it is an additional and fairly supportive piece of circumstantial evidence to consider among the more concrete and incontrovertible evidence presented previously, in particular, not one single photo.

In addition, while I am hesitant to bring up the school issue that went viral and initially brought attention to him, I need to add that there is one piece of that story that speaks to his “honesty”, which is directly relevant in this fiasco. When asked about the school issue going viral, Mike Rossi said in TV and print interviews that he did not actively post the school's letter that was sent to him or his response to the principal except on his own Facebook page, which he claims resulted in "friends" or others reposting it elsewhere, creating the viral problem. That is patently false and a lie, which is why it is mentioned here. You can see here,

http://imgur.com/dSU3P9v

, which is a cached page of his Twitter account in which he posted and reposted both items over and over again. The story was/is also posted on his company's websitehttp://www.eastcoasteventgroup.co/blog . He lied about his participation in this viral debacle, and the fact that he blatantly lied about not doing any posting outside of his Facebook page demonstrates, in part, his lack of integrity and truthfulness and therefore this behavior should also be taken into consideration when weighing any information provided by him to the Committee.

In addition, my understanding is that there was also a relay race going on concurrently with the marathon, so it is no surprise that "The LVHN Via Marathon has not received any reports from the more [than] 2,500 race participants, thousands of spectators, and more than 600 volunteers, course marshals, security personnel, medical personnel or race officials on the course of any wrong doing by any runner". First, consider that it is has now been reported that he was not photographed on the course (except at the finish line), which is fairly conclusive that there was wrong doing on the course because there is no way he made up the time it took 199 other runners to pass that first photo check point and for him to smash his PR in oppressive marathon conditions. Moreover, no one is actively looking for a cheater and given the weather conditions that day and the relay race going on; it is very plausible that Mike Rossi could have easily avoided detection. It is also conceivable that he was able to "sneak" in at one of the, if not perhaps the last, relay points and not be detected by the more than 2,500 race participants. How many people came forward to say they saw him at some point on the course? Are there any? Not one single photo of him has been presented, with the exception of him crossing the finishing line, which by the way, we know does not mean that you ran the entire race. Did you try contacting any other runners? If someone said they did not see him, is that proof enough that he did not run the entire race? Probably not, because you can't prove not seeing him, although the 18,000 photos have affirmed that he was not on the racecourse at various photo check points. I would think and hope that as part of the Committee's due diligence that it tried to contact runners that finished before and after Mike Rossi to see if they recall passing him, being passed by him or running alongside of him at some point of the marathon. Sure, it is a long shot to recall a single person months later, but it could/does happen, especially if you run alongside of someone for any stretch of time. More importantly, it is part of being thorough in an investigation. If you don’t try and don't ask those other runners with similar times, you will never know and your thoroughness and credibility will always be questioned.

While I and many others are not privy to what evidence the LVM Committee reviewed, or more accurately, what evidence the LVM Committee may have that is not in the public domain, I would think that it would behoove the LVM be transparent and to share any information it may have in an effort to support LVM Committee's conclusion and defend the integrity and credibility of the race and its directors. I implore the Committee to provide evidence that it has that supports that Mike Rossi ran 26.2 miles or his time is accurate, or in your own words, “no conclusive evidence that his time is not inaccurate”. Every other runner can at least point to pictures of themselves throughout the race, which is a lot more than can be said for only one person, Mike Rossi. The fact that he wasn’t seen in a single photo on the course, the burden of proof should have shifted to Mike Rossi to provide some shred of evidence that he ran the race (GPS data, photos, statements from fellow competitors, spectators or family members, etc.) or was at least physically capable of something close to a 3:11:45 (training logs, GPS data, statements from training partners), and if he did or did not, then that should have been included in the Committee's statement. If he did provide evidence, then that should be provided in the spirit of transparency.

Of course, if the LVM has been threatened by a lawsuit that really should not dissuade the Committee or have any effect on your conclusion whatsoever. To do otherwise would make you complicit in this debacle. If you believe he his time many not be accurate, aka, cheated, and can point to proof such as the next best thing to timing mats, that is, the photographers and the lack of any photos out of over 18,000 taken, then he should be DQd whether or not he has an attorney who may threaten legal action. As part of running the LVM, he agreed to the terms and conditions of the LVM, which included the following: "I agree to abide by any and all rulings of event officials, even if such ruling results in my disqualification."

So the challenge to you and the LVM Committee is to publicly disclose what evidence you have that Mike Rossi actually ran the entire race and therefore his time is “accurate” and answer to the other questions asked earlier. You owe it not only to individuals who ran the race, but to all runners, the credibility and integrity of the LVM, its supporters, volunteers, sponsors and those who use the LVM as a Boston Marathon qualifying event etc.

To the LVM sponsors, the Boston Marathon, the USTAF, and others copied on this email, I implore you to conduct your own review, insist that the LVM be transparent and share how they arrived at their apparently flawed decision, question the LVM on why the lack of photos is not conclusive proof that Mike Rossi's time is not accurate and consider DQ'ing Mike Rossi from the Boston Marathon. This has become bigger and much more far reaching than the LVM, and it is at the heart of running, sportsmanship, competition and fairness. Each of you should be concerned about the integrity and credibility of the LVM and the Boston Marathon, our beloved sport of running and brand images/names used to support the LVM and the Boston Marathon. I am not sure which is worse; the apparent cheating by this individual or the LVM Committee's overlooking the lack of one single photo of Mike Rossi on the course except at the finish line and saying that they found no conclusive evidence. I further implore you to ask the LVM what would be considered conclusive evidence. As noted before, the photographs are in essence the timing mats (aka anti-cheating mats) that were inexplicably missing throughout the race, a serious omission when you consider the demand to qualify for the arguably the most prestigious marathon in the world, the Boston Marathon. To the Boston Marathon Race Director, if the same facts were presented to you about a runner in your race, what would you do? Would you DQ the runner or turn a blind eye?

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Runners United