This is a man who should be proud of his achievements. He has parkinson's disease and he can still run faster than Mike Rossi.
Do you hear that, Mike Rossi? You accomplished nothing. This man is an inspiration to people. You are pond scum.
- LRC Coverage
-
-
Video Highlights 2015 Boston Marathon
April 20, 2015
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Preview
- Results
- Recap
Did Mike Rossi (viral marathon dad) cheat his way into Boston?
Other Running Related Topic
Other
-
00
-
Yes he does wrote:
Now, on a more serious note, this is EXACTLY the type of evidence we would need
http://www.slowtwitch.com/News/A_moto_ride_to_a_disqualification_5158.htmlWe could definitely get that if we were the FBI and could review surveillance video of places along the highway
00 -
Does this person look like an intelligent person to you?
00 -
oh looks say... wrote:
HI KEN!!!
Hi Barbie!
You must be knew here, deer!
00 -
Job app questions wrote:
http://www.viamarathon.org/news/message_race_director.phpShouldn't that say "A Message from Our Marketing Director"? She doesn't know the first thing about being a race director, in my opinion.
00 -
Job app questions wrote:
Does this person look like an intelligent person to you?
http://www.viamarathon.org/news/message_race_director.phpHonestly, no.
00 -
Gotta give Ken credit; he's over there breaking the marathon's balls on their Facebook page.
A guy says that running the marathon with friends is priceless. Ken tells him they can carpool together to the finish line.
The marathon posts that if you register early you can save $15. Ken says you can use the money to buy a caramel mochiato at Starbucks as you drive to the finish line.
Nearly every comment on there is busting their ass one way or another about Rossi. How stupid are these people to not have seen this coming and to not have figured out this would happen?
I am firmly in the camp that believes they knew he cheated and their decision had nothing to do with that. I think they tried to make a "least damage" decision and thought the promise to do better in the future and their ties to charity would be their shield against a backlash. Could they have been more wrong?
Laughingstock Via Marathon.
00 -
RossiCheated wrote:
Gotta give Ken credit; he's over there breaking the marathon's balls on their Facebook page.
A guy says that running the marathon with friends is priceless. Ken tells him they can carpool together to the finish line.
The marathon posts that if you register early you can save $15. Ken says you can use the money to buy a caramel mochiato at Starbucks as you drive to the finish line.
Nearly every comment on there is busting their ass one way or another about Rossi. How stupid are these people to not have seen this coming and to not have figured out this would happen?
I am firmly in the camp that believes they knew he cheated and their decision had nothing to do with that. I think they tried to make a "least damage" decision and thought the promise to do better in the future and their ties to charity would be their shield against a backlash. Could they have been more wrong?
Laughingstock Via Marathon.
Hi Ken?
00 -
RossiCheated wrote:
Gotta give Ken credit; he's over there breaking the marathon's balls on their Facebook page.
A guy says that running the marathon with friends is priceless. Ken tells him they can carpool together to the finish line.
The marathon posts that if you register early you can save $15. Ken says you can use the money to buy a caramel mochiato at Starbucks as you drive to the finish line.
Nearly every comment on there is busting their ass one way or another about Rossi. How stupid are these people to not have seen this coming and to not have figured out this would happen?
I am firmly in the camp that believes they knew he cheated and their decision had nothing to do with that. I think they tried to make a "least damage" decision and thought the promise to do better in the future and their ties to charity would be their shield against a backlash. Could they have been more wrong?
Laughingstock Via Marathon.
Of course the LVM Committee knew he cheated. Their statement did not say he was innocent, does not say that they believe that he ran the entire race and does not say that they believe that his time was accurate. In fact, they make no positive attribution towards Rossi because in order for them to do so, they would need to be able to back up that claim. Since they cannot back up the claim that his time is accurate, that he was spotted on the race course, or any other conclusive proof that he did in fact run the 26.2 miles, they had absolutely no choice but to issue the statement they did, a negative statement "there is not conclusive evidence that his time in the 2014 LVHN Via Marathon is inaccurate."
Heck, Rossi also knows he cheated because if truly has exculpatory evidence, he would have shared it by now.
00 -
Nah, I'm not Ken. I just appreciate a sense of humor and a willingness to stick it to the man.
00 -
"Dear Runners,
Welcome to the 8th annual Lehigh Valley Health Network Via Marathon which takes place on September 12 & 13, 2015 . The Via Marathon is quickly becoming a must do race - featured in the top 5 list of Boston Qualifiers, our course is a fast downhill race with a big downtown finish and spectacular views.
Cheers,
Barb McKeever, Race Director
Lehigh Valley Health Network Via Marathon"
WTF
Aren't you ashamed, Barb?
00 -
omg they killed kenny's thread wrote:
just tomato it clear I don't think SaraB actually carried Mike's bib for him while Mike paid off Barby, but it's not something we should entirely rule out. Someone needs to find out SaraB's airline records to see if she was in the area the day of the VIA marathon. And someone needs to Barbys bank statements to see if there were any unusual deposits, and then report back.
Not only that, I cheated and cut most of the course. That's why there's no photos of me. I didn't want Mike to know that I couldn't run a 3:11 so I stuck Mike's bib into the colar of the dog. Did you like my distaction at the end to get it back?
00 -
Thank you to one person who gets it.
I haven't posted since I said I was done. But I have read along. It's funny watching everyone accuse me of trolling after all the time of Mike trolling them and me posting under only this registered name.
I'm done with Rossi. He means nothing to me. It sucks he got away with the cheating. He didn't really, but he'll always be able to brag to new friends and clients that he ran Boston. But he didn't get away with the bullying. And some that he tried to intimidate stood up to him and told him to fvck off.
But just because I am done with him doesn't mean I am not going to be critical of a race that turns a blind eye. I will still post on their FB page for two reasons.
1.) hurting their attendance, or possible sponsorship, might be the only thing the RD responds to. It happens all the time when celebrities start to lose endorsements.
2.) runners who are now registering thinking they can cheat and get a BQ need to be reminded year after year the wrath of hell that will come down upon them from the racing community if they cheat.
I know I am not part of your community, but I am getting back to the gym after a minor kidney operation and I may get into it. I have heard it can be very zen-like to run, as well as healthy. I only posted HERE because this is where Rossi was paying attention. If I knew he was on some other forums I would have post been there instead.
I'll be very curious to see if attendance takes a hit, or the marathon's high percentage of BQ's seems to suddenly decline. My guess is that there were many people cheating this race each year, and if there is any silver lining to this is that Rossi has made other cheaters think twice.
00 -
LoserMikeRossi wrote:
Thank you to one person who gets it.
I haven't posted since I said I was done. But I have read along. It's funny watching everyone accuse me of trolling after all the time of Mike trolling them and me posting under only this registered name.
I'm done with Rossi. He means nothing to me. It sucks he got away with the cheating. He didn't really, but he'll always be able to brag to new friends and clients that he ran Boston. But he didn't get away with the bullying. And some that he tried to intimidate stood up to him and told him to fvck off.
But just because I am done with him doesn't mean I am not going to be critical of a race that turns a blind eye. I will still post on their FB page for two reasons.
1.) hurting their attendance, or possible sponsorship, might be the only thing the RD responds to. It happens all the time when celebrities start to lose endorsements.
2.) runners who are now registering thinking they can cheat and get a BQ need to be reminded year after year the wrath of hell that will come down upon them from the racing community if they cheat.
I know I am not part of your community, but I am getting back to the gym after a minor kidney operation and I may get into it. I have heard it can be very zen-like to run, as well as healthy. I only posted HERE because this is where Rossi was paying attention. If I knew he was on some other forums I would have post been there instead.
I'll be very curious to see if attendance takes a hit, or the marathon's high percentage of BQ's seems to suddenly decline. My guess is that there were many people cheating this race each year, and if there is any silver lining to this is that Rossi has made other cheaters think twice.
Hi Ken!
00 -
LoserMikeRossi wrote:
Thank you to one person who gets it.
I haven't posted since I said I was done. But I have read along. It's funny watching everyone accuse me of trolling after all the time of Mike trolling them and me posting under only this registered name.
I'm done with Rossi. He means nothing to me. It sucks he got away with the cheating. He didn't really, but he'll always be able to brag to new friends and clients that he ran Boston. But he didn't get away with the bullying. And some that he tried to intimidate stood up to him and told him to fvck off.
But just because I am done with him doesn't mean I am not going to be critical of a race that turns a blind eye. I will still post on their FB page for two reasons.
1.) hurting their attendance, or possible sponsorship, might be the only thing the RD responds to. It happens all the time when celebrities start to lose endorsements.
2.) runners who are now registering thinking they can cheat and get a BQ need to be reminded year after year the wrath of hell that will come down upon them from the racing community if they cheat.
I know I am not part of your community, but I am getting back to the gym after a minor kidney operation and I may get into it. I have heard it can be very zen-like to run, as well as healthy. I only posted HERE because this is where Rossi was paying attention. If I knew he was on some other forums I would have post been there instead.
I'll be very curious to see if attendance takes a hit, or the marathon's high percentage of BQ's seems to suddenly decline. My guess is that there were many people cheating this race each year, and if there is any silver lining to this is that Rossi has made other cheaters think twice.
Watch out - double not-so-secret probation
http://imgur.com/BP3YGR100 -
Forensic Investigator wrote:
The "videos" are just as invalid for proving anything as the ridiculous "statistical analysis" that is often quoted here. Go back to your jogging and leave the scientific work to the experts.
(1) I don't jog, I run.
(2) There are several lines of statistical reasoning that have been developed on this thread. You call these (all of them?) 'ridiculous', but I have yet to see any serious criticisms of the primary lines of statistical argument.
For example, the number of locations photographed along the course was tabulated for the 100 runners who finished closest to Mr. Rossi. A Pearson's chi-squared test confirms the normality of this data. This justifies the use of a z-test, which indicates that the probability that Mr. Rossi was only photographed at the finish, assuming he ran the race, is about 1 in 11 thousand.
Are you aware of any valid criticisms of this line of statistical argument?
Here's an even stronger and simpler example - photo checkpoints. Apparently the evidence for this line of argument has been strengthened in my absence. But previously, each of the 20 runners who finished closest to Mr. Rossi had been seen at each of three photo checkpoints. Laplace's Rule of Succession suggests (along with common sense) that if you succeed at a given task 20 times in a row, a reasonable estimate for the probability of failure is 1/21. This estimate can be formally derived using Bayes' Theorem, assuming a prior of 50% for the probability success. So this suggests that the probability of Mr. Rossi missing all three checkpoints, assuming he is drawn from the same distribution as the 20 runners who finished closest to him (i.e. assuming that he ran the whole course, like they apparently did) is about (1/21)^3, or about 1 in 9 thousand.
It sounds like this line of argument has been strengthened since then, by expanding it to 5 checkpoints and increasing the number of runners whose photos were looked for. (Awesome work, by the way!!! I'd love a recap of what the new numbers are, i.e. how many runners were tested at each checkpoint and how many were seen.)
But in any case - are you aware of any valid criticisms of this line of statistical argument?
It is lazy and disingenuous to dismiss arguments as 'ridiculous' in the absence of valid criticism. The statistical arguments are strong and damning. They confirm what common sense tells all of us - that if you are the only one not to have your picture taken, and indeed most others around you have their pictures taken multiple times, then this must have taken really, really, implausibly bad luck...assuming you were actually there.
00 -
mileage_man wrote:
Forensic Investigator wrote:
The "videos" are just as invalid for proving anything as the ridiculous "statistical analysis" that is often quoted here. Go back to your jogging and leave the scientific work to the experts.
(1) I don't jog, I run.
(2) There are several lines of statistical reasoning that have been developed on this thread. You call these (all of them?) 'ridiculous', but I have yet to see any serious criticisms of the primary lines of statistical argument.
For example, the number of locations photographed along the course was tabulated for the 100 runners who finished closest to Mr. Rossi. A Pearson's chi-squared test confirms the normality of this data. This justifies the use of a z-test, which indicates that the probability that Mr. Rossi was only photographed at the finish, assuming he ran the race, is about 1 in 11 thousand.
Are you aware of any valid criticisms of this line of statistical argument?
Here's an even stronger and simpler example - photo checkpoints. Apparently the evidence for this line of argument has been strengthened in my absence. But previously, each of the 20 runners who finished closest to Mr. Rossi had been seen at each of three photo checkpoints. Laplace's Rule of Succession suggests (along with common sense) that if you succeed at a given task 20 times in a row, a reasonable estimate for the probability of failure is 1/21. This estimate can be formally derived using Bayes' Theorem, assuming a prior of 50% for the probability success. So this suggests that the probability of Mr. Rossi missing all three checkpoints, assuming he is drawn from the same distribution as the 20 runners who finished closest to him (i.e. assuming that he ran the whole course, like they apparently did) is about (1/21)^3, or about 1 in 9 thousand.
It sounds like this line of argument has been strengthened since then, by expanding it to 5 checkpoints and increasing the number of runners whose photos were looked for. (Awesome work, by the way!!! I'd love a recap of what the new numbers are, i.e. how many runners were tested at each checkpoint and how many were seen.)
But in any case - are you aware of any valid criticisms of this line of statistical argument?
It is lazy and disingenuous to dismiss arguments as 'ridiculous' in the absence of valid criticism. The statistical arguments are strong and damning. They confirm what common sense tells all of us - that if you are the only one not to have your picture taken, and indeed most others around you have their pictures taken multiple times, then this must have taken really, really, implausibly bad luck...assuming you were actually there.
Here is your recap:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vGilRGr2GlI&feature=youtu.be00 -
LoserMikeRossi wrote:
Thank you to one person who gets it.
I haven't posted since I said I was done. But I have read along. It's funny watching everyone accuse me of trolling after all the time of Mike trolling them and me posting under only this registered name.
I'm done with Rossi. He means nothing to me. It sucks he got away with the cheating. He didn't really, but he'll always be able to brag to new friends and clients that he ran Boston. But he didn't get away with the bullying. And some that he tried to intimidate stood up to him and told him to fvck off.
But just because I am done with him doesn't mean I am not going to be critical of a race that turns a blind eye. I will still post on their FB page for two reasons.
1.) hurting their attendance, or possible sponsorship, might be the only thing the RD responds to. It happens all the time when celebrities start to lose endorsements.
2.) runners who are now registering thinking they can cheat and get a BQ need to be reminded year after year the wrath of hell that will come down upon them from the racing community if they cheat.
I know I am not part of your community, but I am getting back to the gym after a minor kidney operation and I may get into it. I have heard it can be very zen-like to run, as well as healthy. I only posted HERE because this is where Rossi was paying attention. If I knew he was on some other forums I would have post been there instead.
I'll be very curious to see if attendance takes a hit, or the marathon's high percentage of BQ's seems to suddenly decline. My guess is that there were many people cheating this race each year, and if there is any silver lining to this is that Rossi has made other cheaters think twice.
So you no longer care about Mike Rossi, but you are determined to fix a marathon that you will never, ever, ever in your life run?
One that has already announced they will have multiple mats plus a video system next year?
Yeah, sure Ken.
As sure as you eating too many cheeseburgers today.
We are all laughing at you, Ken. Laughing at your sick obsession.
You are a bigger laughingstock than Mike Rossi.
And you only have yourself to blame.
We are all laughing at you, Ken.
Let that sink in.
00 -
Thanks, hmmmmmmm! That video was awesome. Succinct, clear, and damning.
Two minor quibbles - first, we want to use the data about the other 199 runners to draw conclusions about Mike. So Mike should be removed from the pool of runners that we are considering when we are estimating the probability of a runner getting missed at one of the checkpoints. According to this reasoning, if we stick with P(not photo'd, assuming you ran) = (# not photo'd)/(# who ran) - more on that in a second - the new numbers we get are:
P(Mike not photo'd, assuming Mike ran) = (20/199)*(0/199)*(64/199)*(81/199)*(4/199) = 0.
This brings us to quibble #2, which is that we're using the wrong way to estimate the probability of getting missed at each checkpoint. The method used treats the the 200 runners as a population, whereas instead it is more appropriate to treat the 199 other runners as a sample from some larger distribution. As above, this is because we want to use the data from the other runners to evaluate the plausibility of the data we have about Mike, under the assumption that Mike actually ran (i.e. under the assumption that Mike Rossi is drawn from the same sample as the 199 other runners). It's a minor difference, but it can matter a lot in cases like the mile 7 checkpoint where Mike was the only one missed. Anyway, the 'right' way to do it is using 'Laplace's rule of succession' which suggests that if you perform n trials, and achieve s successes, the probability of success should be estimated as (s+1)/(n+2). See here for example:
http://www.cut-the-knot.org/Probability/RuleOfSuccession.shtml
. This can be formally derived from the axioms of probability theory, assuming a 50% prior for the probability of success. In any case, this means that the numbers end up as follows:
P(Mike not photo'd, assuming Mike ran) = (21/201)*(1/201)*(65/201)*(82/201)*(5/201) = 1.7 x 10^-6.
So the slightly tweaked numbers are 1.7 out of a million (instead of 1.75 out of a million), or 1 in 586 thousand (instead of 1 in 572 thousand).
Thanks again for the link to the video, and sorry for having been behind the times. Obviously the quibbles I pointed out don't affect the conclusions of the analysis in a serious way, but I do feel that 1 in 586 thousand is the more defensible number (for all you probability purists out there).
00 -
Oh Ken, really? wrote:
LoserMikeRossi wrote:
Thank you to one person who gets it.
I haven't posted since I said I was done. But I have read along. It's funny watching everyone accuse me of trolling after all the time of Mike trolling them and me posting under only this registered name.
I'm done with Rossi. He means nothing to me. It sucks he got away with the cheating. He didn't really, but he'll always be able to brag to new friends and clients that he ran Boston. But he didn't get away with the bullying. And some that he tried to intimidate stood up to him and told him to fvck off.
But just because I am done with him doesn't mean I am not going to be critical of a race that turns a blind eye. I will still post on their FB page for two reasons.
1.) hurting their attendance, or possible sponsorship, might be the only thing the RD responds to. It happens all the time when celebrities start to lose endorsements.
2.) runners who are now registering thinking they can cheat and get a BQ need to be reminded year after year the wrath of hell that will come down upon them from the racing community if they cheat.
I know I am not part of your community, but I am getting back to the gym after a minor kidney operation and I may get into it. I have heard it can be very zen-like to run, as well as healthy. I only posted HERE because this is where Rossi was paying attention. If I knew he was on some other forums I would have post been there instead.
I'll be very curious to see if attendance takes a hit, or the marathon's high percentage of BQ's seems to suddenly decline. My guess is that there were many people cheating this race each year, and if there is any silver lining to this is that Rossi has made other cheaters think twice.
So you no longer care about Mike Rossi, but you are determined to fix a marathon that you will never, ever, ever in your life run?
One that has already announced they will have multiple mats plus a video system next year?
Yeah, sure Ken.
As sure as you eating too many cheeseburgers today.
We are all laughing at you, Ken. Laughing at your sick obsession.
You are a bigger laughingstock than Mike Rossi.
And you only have yourself to blame.
We are all laughing at you, Ken.
Let that sink in.
Hi Mike
00
What People Are Talking About On LetsRun
No top threads at the moment. Check back soon.