lol, I'm not claiming that my involvement on this thread is something I'm proud of but for this person to claim they're only checking in every 1-2 weeks and they don't actually care is hilarious. Let's face it, we're all weirdos here, regardless of our stance. But it's abundantly obvious that the David Roche stans are the ignorant ones. Like Trump voters - can't blame em all for being manipulated :).
-
130
-
TheseWattsDontLie wrote:
lol, I'm not claiming that my involvement on this thread is something I'm proud of but for this person to claim they're only checking in every 1-2 weeks and they don't actually care is hilarious. Let's face it, we're all weirdos here, regardless of our stance. But it's abundantly obvious that the David Roche stans are the ignorant ones. Like Trump voters - can't blame em all for being manipulated :).
Sigh. All right, last one (most likely) for today. My third since apparently my posting quantity is now being counted by the angry mob with the intelligence and thoughtfulness of the January 6th crew. Which of you is wearing the horned fur hat?
Not that I need to justify my posting frequency, but 99.9% sure I posted last Friday and didn't read nor post again until last night. Think I posted some about 10-14 days earlier, but not arsed enough to go look.
As I've said repeatedly, in the real world I'm not a Roche stan but in your angry and delusional fantasy world any middle-ground comments are signs of brain-washing.
I'll see you losers next week. :)212 -
umm, no.... wrote:
TheseWattsDontLie wrote:
lol, I'm not claiming that my involvement on this thread is something I'm proud of but for this person to claim they're only checking in every 1-2 weeks and they don't actually care is hilarious. Let's face it, we're all weirdos here, regardless of our stance. But it's abundantly obvious that the David Roche stans are the ignorant ones. Like Trump voters - can't blame em all for being manipulated :).
Sigh. All right, last one (most likely) for today. My third since apparently my posting quantity is now being counted by the angry mob with the intelligence and thoughtfulness of the January 6th crew. Which of you is wearing the horned fur hat?
Not that I need to justify my posting frequency, but 99.9% sure I posted last Friday and didn't read nor post again until last night. Think I posted some about 10-14 days earlier, but not arsed enough to go look.
As I've said repeatedly, in the real world I'm not a Roche stan but in your angry and delusional fantasy world any middle-ground comments are signs of brain-washing.
I'll see you losers next week. :)
cool story boomer
70 -
umm, no.... wrote:
I'll see you losers next week. :)
*He follows this witty retort by pressing refresh on his browser. Then presses it again. No new posts.
Off to ask Granny for his after school snack. And tell her about his new friends on the internet.
Then back. To press refresh again. And again.
61 -
"Francesco Alberoni describes the early phases of a movement as a moment of effervescence—a time when individuals, disillusioned with existing structures, find solace in collective indignation. It is a rebirth of sorts, an eruption of communitas in which participants feel bound together by their rejection of a common enemy.
In the case of the Roche thread, we observe a classic nascent state: individuals, initially scattered and isolated in their grievances, coalesce into a self-sustaining community. Their dissatisfaction—perhaps born of personal disappointment, failed athletic aspirations, or a broader distrust of 'influencer' culture—transforms into a collective identity. The movement defines itself not by what it stands for, but by what it opposes: Roche, as a symbol of perceived dishonesty, elitism, and undeserved success.
At this stage, facts are secondary to emotion. The movement does not require external validation, nor does it welcome contradiction. Instead, it builds its own internal logic, reinforcing itself with ritualized discourse—endless parsing of Strava data, forensic examinations of Columbia’s 2006 football roster, speculation about Roche’s inner psychology. Each new revelation, however minor, is greeted with a surge of energy, a validation of the group’s collective purpose.
Yet, as Alberoni reminds us, all movements eventually face a reckoning. The initial euphoria gives way to structure, hierarchy, and—ironically—the same rigidity that the movement originally rejected. The Roche thread will not be immune to this fate. Already, fractures emerge: some contributors push for more rigorous analysis, others revel in sheer mockery. Some see themselves as whistleblowers, others as jesters. But every movement has its clowns.
And here, the clowns are running the show. They honk and bellow, slapping oversized shoes against the ground, mistaking their own noise for revelation. But what they perform is not truth-seeking—it is spectacle, and the spectacle is always more important than the substance. Like all clowns, they believe they are the only ones who see clearly, failing to grasp that they are the joke.
History suggests it will not last. A movement built on half-truths and outright fabrications cannot sustain itself. And when the tent finally collapses, these clowns will find what all clowns eventually find: the audience has moved on, the laughter has stopped, and no one cares who they were pretending to be."
310 -
but history will remember the movement. did he run a sub-4min mile? does he coach too many runners? did he play college football? did he bench 225 x 12 reps? did he fail as an attorney? I think we have adequately answered all these questions and the thread can slowly wrap up and leave the blaze marks for future runners to review before handing over cash to the new Dean Karnazes (and we've always had a clown in the ultra world to lead the way with the back of the packers).
80 -
Holy crap, people. I haven't posted in possibly 30 pages, but this is some excellent, high-brow reading. If nothing else, the thread gives David lots of 'hate' to feed off of, and fuels his narcissism. He is probably going bat-crap crazy trying to decide if he hates this thread because it makes him feel bad, or if he loves it because, holy poop, 56 pages about me! You're all awesome. I love you so much. Huzzah!
Can't we just keep it straight and simple, and highlight the points that are pretty irrefutable? David and Megan and massive narcissists and grifters. They make a living selling something that isn't real, though quite honestly that's what social media is all about, so I guess they have mastered their influencer marketing 101 coursework. What do they lie about? Well, just about everything. From power and weight data on Zwift to treadmill workouts, to weekly mileage, time spent training, to their entire 'Love Everyone' philosophy. They are so protected and insulated by their cult-like followers that they have no need to truly fear being called out by anyone. Hell, that's why we are all anonymous here on LetsRun. David will delete and block anyone who does dare question him on social media. I've been blocked by him on just about everyone platform (possibly more than once) for pointing out inconsistencies in his rhetoric, questioning his claims, and asking him to actually show all his data for everyone to see and consume (no secrets!). I also mentioned that if he were to go for a world record, that he should voluntarily undergo offseason and regular drug testing so that we can all get that warm fuzzy that he achieved any potential record clean. I think that's fair. Trail running is a full on free for all, so why not proactively silence any doubters? He initially didn't delete or ban me, he instead took the high road and offered me love (and a pair of shoes!) and said I must not know him. When I let him know that we have actually been acquainted for over a decade now, and that we have corresponded countless times, spent time at races together (hell I even helped support Megan at one of her early 'big wins'), and I have been told "You're Awesome!" far more than I could ever count -- well, that's when he went on a blocking binge. I have stood next to him and Megan as they told people they were awesome in one breath, then talked sh!t about them in the next. I likely actively participated in the sh!t talking, but definitely not in the awesomeness.
Much like this entire thread, I think I lost what my original point was. Ultimately, the criticisms of him and Megan are valid. His coaching practices border on criminal -- and are definitely dangerous. He is trained to analyze blood now and give recommendations? He's a liar, grifter, and fraud. Oh, and could most likely, definitely, not run a sub-4 mile on a calibrated, or uncalibrated, track at sea level.
290 -
bn9149 wrote:
When I worked with him as a former elite cyclist he claimed over and over "he could have gone pro based on his collegiate results"...there are zero results, he talks all about how poor of a bike handler he was and crashed out of every race, and now he lies on Zwift...so, yeah, I wouldn't trust the football background either.
Not to mention the cycling coaching is laughably bad and yet here he is now saying he could coach cyclists to the olympic level.
I seriously don't understand how people continue to follow him like a god. He's just flaunting his ultra talent in their faces and claiming he's just like them but is starting to trip over his lies. I'm encouraged to see people calling out their skepticism after formerly ascribing to him. Look, all of us former athletes of his also thought very fondly of him for a time. There's been a DISTINCT shift since Leadville (and shortly before). That's not to say there isn't a lot of problematic behavior from before but it was just less obvious. And he was less insufferable.
Can't wait for someone to tell me he lives rent free in my head again simply because I don't want other people falling victim to his BS!
I cannot fathom why anyone who is not a beginner would ever go to David for cycling coaching.
This is another lie of his. Having known him for over a decade, he never brought up cycling in his development as an athlete. It was always football then he found running. He never mentioned cycling. But I guess he wants credibility and to throw suspicion regarding his jump in watts, so he has to say he’s been in it for a while.
From what I gather, their smart trainer either reads about 30 watts too high or they are using an app to inflate the watts. Look closely at the power profile and things are spiky. Also, check out Megan’s Zwift screen shots. Her power graph is bizarre. Again spiky and kind of like a rainbow (zone irregularity). She also can’t change her weight to be accurate, but she can change her in game bike…
100 -
EwDavid wrote:
bn9149 wrote:
When I worked with him as a former elite cyclist he claimed over and over "he could have gone pro based on his collegiate results"...there are zero results, he talks all about how poor of a bike handler he was and crashed out of every race, and now he lies on Zwift...so, yeah, I wouldn't trust the football background either.
Not to mention the cycling coaching is laughably bad and yet here he is now saying he could coach cyclists to the olympic level.
I seriously don't understand how people continue to follow him like a god. He's just flaunting his ultra talent in their faces and claiming he's just like them but is starting to trip over his lies. I'm encouraged to see people calling out their skepticism after formerly ascribing to him. Look, all of us former athletes of his also thought very fondly of him for a time. There's been a DISTINCT shift since Leadville (and shortly before). That's not to say there isn't a lot of problematic behavior from before but it was just less obvious. And he was less insufferable.
Can't wait for someone to tell me he lives rent free in my head again simply because I don't want other people falling victim to his BS!
I cannot fathom why anyone who is not a beginner would ever go to David for cycling coaching.
This is another lie of his. Having known him for over a decade, he never brought up cycling in his development as an athlete. It was always football then he found running. He never mentioned cycling. But I guess he wants credibility and to throw suspicion regarding his jump in watts, so he has to say he’s been in it for a while.
From what I gather, their smart trainer either reads about 30 watts too high or they are using an app to inflate the watts. Look closely at the power profile and things are spiky. Also, check out Megan’s Zwift screen shots. Her power graph is bizarre. Again spiky and kind of like a rainbow (zone irregularity). She also can’t change her weight to be accurate, but she can change her in game bike…
Yeah he claims to have gotten into competitive cycling when he was at Columbia? In manhattan? Is there a school club team? I call bs
60 -
Roche Rocks!!! wrote:
Yeah he claims to have gotten into competitive cycling when he was at Columbia? In manhattan? Is there a school club team? I call bs
"...and racing bicycles, Roche cruised through school, right up until graduation week, when he was hit by a taxi. ... Unable to bike, he took up running." racing implies participation in races, which generally post race results, even way back in the olden days. also of note is some sort of injury that prevented further biking until recently.
60 -
There actually is a collegiate team at Columbia, part of the ECCC. But there are no results. And I was racing collegiate at the same time and my results are online so yeah, I call BS that he never actually entered (or finished) a bike race.
60 -
Go look at his posting history on slowtwitch to verify the cycling comments.
00 -
Looks like in 2007 he DNF'd the ECCC Northeastern Championships in Men's C1 category (I don't know what that category means, but it looks like the divisions were A-D)
Men C1 1 Nic Magliocco (UVM) 2 John Beers (Temple) 3 Mark Vareschi (Rutgers) 4 Michael Wasserman (Columbia) 5 Sean Coldren (Penn State) 6 Brian Gabele (Columbia) 7 Lee Peters (UVM) 8 Ross Saxton (UVM) 9 Anthony Hall (Columbia) 10 James Patterson (UVM) 11 Keith Wong (Cornell) 12 Robert McCoy (U Delaware) 13 Brian Lawney (Cornell) 14 Alexander Pratt (Penn State) 15 Drew Chieda (U Conn) 16 Mike Anthony (UNH) 17 Robert O'Brien (Columbia) 18 Nathan Kupperstock (Boston U) 19 Chris DeCarlo (Penn State) 20 Colum Lang (UNH) 21 Kyle Gheres (Penn State) 22 Aaron Cruikshank (Penn State) 23 Richard Kassan (Rutgers) 24 Daniel Bensen (UVM) 25 William Fissel (U Delaware) 26 Alexander Graybeal (Columbia) 27 Greg Whitney (Northeastern) 28 Steven Marks (Columbia) 29 Jay Hydren (UNH) 30 Zachary Byers (U Pitt) 31 John Strevel (Harvard) 32 Isaac Dinner (Columbia) 33 Taylor McClain (Penn State) 34 Max Rietmann (Cornell) 35 Jeff Lukach (UNH) 36 David Berger (U Penn) DNF Colin Connolly (Harvard) DNF David Roche (Columbia) DNF Jonah Zimmerman (Boston U) DNF Benjamin Pinkus (Northeastern) DNF Alex Brough (Penn State)
http://autobus.cyclingnews.com/road/2007/apr07/ecccchamps07/ecccchamps073.html#gc
20 -
Some more cycling results from 2007 & 2008. Again, I don't know much about cycling, but he seems to either DNF or finish around the bottom 1/2 to bottom 1/3 overall, competing in the Mens B and C divisions. I'm guessing that for the cycling inclined these results are less than impressive?
https://autobus.cyclingnews.com/road.php?id=road/2007/mar07/eccc_upenn07/eccc_upenn073
40 -
BoredBear wrote:
Some more cycling results from 2007 & 2008. Again, I don't know much about cycling, but he seems to either DNF or finish around the bottom 1/2 to bottom 1/3 overall, competing in the Mens B and C divisions. I'm guessing that for the cycling inclined these results are less than impressive?
Good thing he can just cheat on Zwift now, that’s ALOT easier…
80 -
What do you mean “banging on”? He’s an ultra runner, not a miler. Who cares? Why so many posts about it?
38 -
BoredBear wrote:
Some more cycling results from 2007 & 2008. Again, I don't know much about cycling, but he seems to either DNF or finish around the bottom 1/2 to bottom 1/3 overall, competing in the Mens B and C divisions. I'm guessing that for the cycling inclined these results are less than impressive?
One caveat would be that if you're a really bad bike handler then you will get spat even if you're physiologically much fitter, the efforts to get back on after every bend in a crit soon take it's toll, unfortunately I speak from experience - better power numbers vs team mates but was always flying out the back....probably why I'm now a runner!
40
3 posts were removed from this page.
What People Are Talking About On LetsRun
No top threads at the moment. Check back soon.