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

Ain't that a lie! wrote:

"The outcome in all of this is better than the running community could have really hoped for."

1. Rossi posted online a letter he received from the principal of his children's elementary school because he took his two children out of school to watch him run in the Boston Marathon.

2. He then responded and wrote a sarcastic and self-serving letter to the principal, addressing it "Dear Madam Principal" rather using her real name which would have demonstrated generally accepted standards of respect (he later tries to claim he loves the school and the principal and meant no harm) when writing a letter. He essentially threw a hissy fit because he believed that he and his family should be treated differently than any other school district families.

3. He never sent that letter to the principal or any other school administrator but instead posted it online. I could understand taking all of this public after you have exhausted all avenues of recourse that responsible people first try, that is, meeting with school officials.

4. He subsequently said he posted both letters on only his Facebook page which were solely intended for his "friends" to see. He then denied that he posted either letter anywhere else but to his Facebook page, yet that was a lie as has been shown via screen captures and saved images of his twitter account and other social media sources (including his company website) that he posted/reposted and tweeted/retweeted said letters and giving tv and radio interviews, all before ever meeting with any administrator in the school district. One could argue that he was cyber-bullying the principal by his childish behavior, the tone of his letter and the sarcasm he envoked.

5. The principal did not single out Rossi or treat him and his two children any different than any of the other 7,500 students in the school district. Partial disclosure - I live in this school district. Letters such as this are issued for unexcused absences. Why he choose to make an issue of this is beyond me because it does not affect a student, especially third graders, unless the student already has a history (10 or more I believe in the state of PA) of unexcused absences.

6. This attention brought scrutiny to his public "running" and race times, as well as all of his posting and boasting on his social media accounts. As questions arose, the once very public figure decided to go uncharacteristically quiet and close his social media accounts or made them private.

7. Rossi posted and boasted about his running and training like he was an accomplished runner or athlete, although much of it sounded quite amateurish. He posted pictures like a teen.

8. He "runs" the race of a lifetime after only 18 months of running and total of about 1,000 miles at the age of 46 and all of sudden he finds modesty and barely mentions his Lehigh Valley Health Network Via Marathon's race time, in spite of somehow cutting an enormous amount of time from his PR. After every other race, he wrote a lot on his social media accounts and posted tons of pictures at each race. However, for some reason, barely a peep from him after the LVM. Things that make you go hmm?

9. When questioned in an interview about the disconnect between previous race times and his LVM race time/pace, he said he wasnt trying in the other races yet in his posts he blatantly boasted about his race times and expressed how he thought his race times were good etc., thus his posted comments are consistent with someone trying to do his best and trying to get BQ. In fact, in the Philadelphia Marathon he mentions his time and the BQ and being upset that he "just" missed a BQ because of a bathroom break.

10. There is not one single photograph of Rossi on the LVM race course, with the exception of the ones at the finish line. The race course did not have time mats but did have several camera checkpoints on the course. There is a nearly continuous run of photos at least three checkpoints.

11. At one of the photo checkpoints there was on average more than 48 photos published per minute for a 13 minute stretch during which Rossi would have to run by the checkpoint (with the fewest photos in any one minute stretch being 40 photos). All of the 20 closest finishers to Rossi (in terms of place, 10 ahead, 10 behind) were spotted at all three checkpoints and yet Mr. Rossi is absent from all three.

12. An analysis of the first photo checkpoint revealed that 199 of the top 200 finishers were photographed. Guess who is missing? Yep, Rossi #2161. Is it a coincidence that the individual who ran his fastest pace/time for a marathon and at a faster pace than many of the shorter distances (in spite of usually slowing down over longer races) did not have one single photo on the course? I think not. No reasonable person thinks its a coincidence. However, I am open to seeing and reviewing any photos or evidence that shows he was in fact on the course, excluding the start and finish lines.

13. The LVM Committee did NOT confirm nor did it state that they believed that Rossi ran the entire race, and they also did not say that they thought his time was accurate and did not say that they thought he did not cheat. Quite the opposite, as their statement said there was no conclusive evidence that his time was inaccurate. Saying or concluding a runner's time is accurate (and here is why we think so) is much different than saying that there was no conclusive evidence that a runner's time was inaccurate. In fact, they did not did provide any evidence that his time was accurate. Why not? But how could they? They did not have interim timing mats and there was not a photo to be found of him on the course. Moreover, they didn't even address the issue of photos in their statement. That is telling.

14. Other runners can at least point to time-stamped photos at various points on the course to say "there I am", which is more than can be said for Rossi! He can't. He hasn't. He refuses to!

15. The lack of photos of Rossi is arguably more damning than his time/pace time. Why? One can debate race times/pace, training etc., but there is no bias in continuous, time-stamped photos being taken by professional photographers there to capture every racer. That is not to say that race times/pace and training is not an important piece of evidence, it is, especially in light of his other race times, particularly his pace in 5k's.

16. The mere fact that the LVM Race Director decided to impanel a committee to "review" this debacle meant there was enough "probable cause" or suspicion to do so. Therefore, it is the LVM Committee's and Rossi's responsibility to provide the conclusive evidence that his time is accurate, not anyone else's to provide conclusive evidence that his time is inaccurate.

17. Of course this isnt any evidence that he ran the race or his time is inaccurate because the LVM abdicated its responsibility of ensuring accuracy and validity of the race times BEFORE the race by not having timing mats throughout the race course and AFTER the race by its flawed investigation, reasoning and statement.

18. Rossi claims to have photos and other exculpatory evidence to demonstrate that his time is accurate/ran the entire race. It is time for Rossi to provide any and all information that he claims to possess rather than just saying so. Saying so does not make it true. If he truly has such evidence, then there is no reason why he should not or would not share it. NONE. Failure to provide this information can only lead one to reasonably conclude that he is lying about this so called "evidence" and thus, he cheated and his time is inaccurate.

"The presumption of innocence is an important part of our criminal law system. Basically it means that if you are accused of a crime, you don't have to prove you are innocent. Instead, it is the job of the prosecutor to prove you are guilty. Accordingly, you are presumed innocent until proven guilty."

We have evidence. The judge (Barb McKeever) is refusing to see it. But that may be changing soon.

Agree, in my courts that makes him presumed officially innocent until proven officially guilty.

Yes, the presumption of innocence is part of our criminal law system. However, this was neither a court case nor a criminal case. If in fact it were, then we would have been able to read, see and hear the evidence presented and reviewed. Instead since there was no exculpatory evidence the little Mikey or the Committee had, they could not and did not come out and say anything in support of little Mikey. Just to reiterate, why? Because Mikey has nothing in spite of him proclaiming that he does. The Committee has nothing either because if they did they would have said he has been cleared and here is why!

Remember, Mikey has publicly (and privately to me) that he has photos of himself on the course, so while under the court system he has no obligation to provide proof of his innocence, if he is going to open his big mouth in the court of public opinion, like he uncontrollably does, then he ought to stand by his words and proclamations and show what he has. Otherwise he is just a big blow hard liar. Finally, since he said that he was given photos by the Committee of US Candids pictures that didn't make the "final cut", that just adds to the lies uttered by Mikey since US Candids confirmed that all pictures were posted and there was no "leftover" pictures. Liar liar, pants on fire.

Johnny Cockring wrote:

You were saying moron? wrote:

"The presumption of innocence is an important part of our criminal law system. Basically it means that if you are accused of a crime, you don't have to prove you are innocent. Instead, it is the job of the prosecutor to prove you are guilty. Accordingly, you are presumed innocent until proven guilty."

We have evidence. The judge (Barb McKeever) is refusing to see it. But that may be changing soon when the evidence groups present their findings.

You were saying moron? wrote:

"The presumption of innocence is an important part of our criminal law system. Basically it means that if you are accused of a crime, you don't have to prove you are innocent. Instead, it is the job of the prosecutor to prove you are guilty. Accordingly, you are presumed innocent until proven guilty."

You stupid prick with the IQ of a joghurt lid, presumption-of-innocense is ONLY applicable between state and citizen.

As such it was a too valuable achievement in history to let it watered down by idiots like you who want to use it as a gag order!

Civilization would be better off without you.

From Black's Legal Dictionary

Something else you may not understand:

"The right to remain silent is a legal right"

Mike gained some weight? Bold talk for a guy who cheated on his BQ, the other guy is inconsequential to Mike's cheating. Hi moron!

PG13 wrote:

Whoa! Careful here! wrote:

Saying someone "Rossid" a thread is about as mean as you can get.

Actually getting Rossi'ed is when you take it up the ass from a fat guy who has never run a mile.

Yes you are right, except (as I just said, clearly have a reading comprehension issue which based on emails received from Rossi, he does too) that......................

Mikey gave up that right when he came here, posted on Facebook and his blog and broke his silence about what he has to support his running the race. He continued to break his silence when proclaimed he has photos to prove he ran the race, has gps logs to prove he ran the race, etc. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

ALL THE ABOVE MEANS JACKSHIT HE WASN'T DQ'ED AND NEVER WILL BE JUST ASK DOUBLER THE BIGGEST GET MIKE MAN ON THIS THREAD AND EVEN AFTER 533 PAGES YOU MORONS CAN'T GET IT THROUGH YOUR THICK HEADS, IT'S OVER, FINITO, KAPUT. GET BACK TO YOUR LIVES IF YOU'VE GOT ONE.

You really need to think before you speak. These are all nice little tidbits, but your little boy hasn't abided by any of them. Why? Because he is a liar and a cheater. No soup for you.

The problem being that whilst pleading the Fifth is entirely legitimate, a reasonable person looking at the circumstances of any situation is perfectly entitled to draw their own conclusions about someone refusing to present evidence in their defence.

You cannot legislate against opinions.

IT'S OVER, FINITO, KAPUT wrote:

You won't be on my legal team wrote:

Something else you may not understand:

"The right to remain silent is a legal right"

ALL THE ABOVE MEANS JACKSHIT HE WASN'T DQ'ED AND NEVER WILL BE JUST ASK DOUBLER THE BIGGEST GET MIKE MAN ON THIS THREAD AND EVEN AFTER 533 PAGES YOU MORONS CAN'T GET IT THROUGH YOUR THICK HEADS, IT'S OVER, FINITO, KAPUT. GET BACK TO YOUR LIVES IF YOU'VE GOT ONE.

Ok little man, Mike! Whatever or whateva...loser

IT'S OVER, FINITO, KAPUT wrote:

You won't be on my legal team wrote:

Something else you may not understand:

"The right to remain silent is a legal right"

ALL THE ABOVE MEANS JACKSHIT HE WASN'T DQ'ED AND NEVER WILL BE JUST ASK DOUBLER THE BIGGEST GET MIKE MAN ON THIS THREAD AND EVEN AFTER 533 PAGES YOU MORONS CAN'T GET IT THROUGH YOUR THICK HEADS, IT'S OVER, FINITO, KAPUT. GET BACK TO YOUR LIVES IF YOU'VE GOT ONE.

Yep. He wasn't DQ'd but he is guilty of cheating and lying. I know it, he knows it, you know, we know it, the Committee knows it and the most of the running community and his own community knows it.

Inconvenient Truth wrote:

...

When someone uses a word like "exculpatory" to try and show how clever they are and then write:

"but your little boy hasn't abided by any of them. Why? Because he is a liar and a cheater. No soup for you"

tells me one thing, Mike wins.

Presumed Innocent wrote:

Inconvenient Truth wrote:

...

When someone uses a word like "exculpatory" to try and show how clever they are and then write:

"but your little boy hasn't abided by any of them. Why? Because he is a liar and a cheater. No soup for you"

tells me one thing, Mike wins.

And my hair is awesome.

Boston was just a bucket list item. I care about running as much as I care about any other item to be checked off. Visit a foreign country. DJ a wedding. Run Boston.

I win.

Experienced Kip Watcher wrote:

The problem being that whilst pleading the Fifth is entirely legitimate, a reasonable person looking at the circumstances of any situation is perfectly entitled to draw their own conclusions about someone refusing to present evidence in their defence.

You cannot legislate against opinions.

Correct. Thank you.