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

Late to this thread and in Australia so I Googled Mike Rossi and this fella comes top. Apologies if this has already been posted, interesting readers comments at the bottom of the article:

http://www.phillymag.com/news/2015/05/05/did-boston-marathon-dad-mike-rossi-cheat/

also

http://boston.suntimes.com/bos-news/7/119/163973/dad-of-the-year-candidate-cheat-into-boston-marathon/

There is enough evidence at hand to "prove" he cheated. The evidence is circumstantial, but much of the evidence used in court cases is circumstantial. Even science, in some cases, relies on circumstantial evidence (see quantum physics). Circumstantial evidence is sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that someone is guilty, even if some (perhaps like the accused, for example?) don't understand the logic behind it.

A look at finish photos for finishers very late in the race may show him walking back up the course to get back to the place he stashed his car when he jumped back in.

As someone who actually did train hard enough to make over an hour improvement in my marathon time in five months, to BQ-10 and run a sub 3:00, this guy makes me sick and it is insulting to us that work hard. I don't believe he actually ran that 3:11 or accomplished anything

And yes, my athlinks and races following my improvement more then support this.

http://www.athlinks.com/athletes/197083256

Maybe he's just not that photogenic.

http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/04/06/internet-meet-ridiculously-photogenic-guy/

mperaginejr wrote:

As someone who actually did train hard enough to make over an hour improvement in my marathon time in five months, to BQ-10 and run a sub 3:00, this guy makes me sick and it is insulting to us that work hard. I don't believe he actually ran that 3:11 or accomplished anything

And yes, my athlinks and races following my improvement more then support this.

http://www.athlinks.com/athletes/197083256

Congratulations, but your athlinks picture makes you look like a douche as well. And you should know the difference between then and than.

Sincerely,

LRC community

irony killed the cat wrote:

Prediction: Mike Rossi NEVER gets convicted of this. His 3:11 will stand, his BQ will stand and his Boston finish will stand. There will never be enough evidence to sway any RD, jurisdiction or public opinion. All Mike has to do is continue monitoring this thread and he'll know there will be never enough to convict so he'll go to the grave with this. He will actually become a sympathetic figure because of cyberbulling from a bunch of nutjobs on a running website.

Mike! Good to hear from you again buddy.

More coverage...

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

R U Cereal? wrote:

Are you guys serious? How many pages on this?

I don't know anything about this guy. But it is really weird that so many obsess over whether or not he may have cheated his way into Boston.

I amazed at the people indifferent to this situation.

We AREN'T OBSESSING over that fact that someone simply cheated his way into Boston. We ARE OBSESSING over the fact that an EGOMANIAC, who publicly SHAMED his kids principal teacher for not excusing their absences while watching him run Boston, CHEATED his way into the Boston.

Exactly. Both direct and circumstantial evidence is on a continuum, from weak to strong. I served on a grand jury a few years ago, and this was drilled into us for each case (4 month time on it). The example that sticks with me is this: You exit the building, you see wet pavement, wet trees, people with umbrellas, and a storm cloud receding into the distance. You have strong circumstantial evidence that it rained, even though you never saw a drop fall from the sky. Direct evidence is either a witness or video of rain falling. In this case, the circumstantial evidence is compelling (especially if you understand distance running even jut a little bit)

Someone should contact the race photo company. I bet that they'd say that no photographers are allowed a break during the height of the race.

I'll bite...

Is this serious?

From a 4:05 marathon in May to a 2:59 in October? Jeez. Incredible if true.

Sounds like the RD is passing the buck by giving the decision over to the USATF. It's her race, she can and should decide on the DQ. What does the USATF have to do with it?

I'm sure the USATF has more pressing issues than looking at the DQ for a 3:11 marathoner who didn't even finish in an age group award.

This story will go nowhere without action from the RD.

mperaginejr wrote:

As someone who actually did train hard enough to make over an hour improvement in my marathon time in five months, to BQ-10 and run a sub 3:00, this guy makes me sick and it is insulting to us that work hard. I don't believe he actually ran that 3:11 or accomplished anything

And yes, my athlinks and races following my improvement more then support this.

http://www.athlinks.com/athletes/197083256

Change your picture, change your picture now, you're a freaking Mike Rossi starter kit.

mperaginejr wrote:

As someone who actually did train hard enough to make over an hour improvement in my marathon time in five months, to BQ-10 and run a sub 3:00, this guy makes me sick and it is insulting to us that work hard. I don't believe he actually ran that 3:11 or accomplished anything

And yes, my athlinks and races following my improvement more then support this.

http://www.athlinks.com/athletes/197083256

Thanks for trying to make this thread about you. Newsflash, nobody cares about your race times.

irony killed the cat wrote:

Experienced Kip Watcher wrote:

Fixed it for you

I've had this alias for over 10 years but if you want to play the "we know it's you Mike" game then fine, the outcome will remain the same.

The "I know it's you, Mike" crowd is as pathetic as Mike himself.

Hint for that crowd: STOP CLAIMING TO KNOW WHO SOMEONE IS WHEN YOU HAVE NO FRIGGIN CLUE.

Of course some idiot will come back claiming I am Mike as well. For you, d-bag, 'Yay'.

lemme help wrote:

There is a weakness in the current "statistical argument" against having only 1 photo. It is always possible for a photographer to take a break, check his phone, etc and miss some runners. If this happens, then it's not just 1 photo lost, but 2-3 photos lost (most runners have several photos at each site). So Rossi can reasonably claim his 1 photo is a result of bad luck at several locations. After all, in a large enough sample, outliers *do* occur.

I already responded to this once to point out that what we did statistics on was the number of locations where runners were captured, not the number of photos. As a result this criticism misses the mark, and our stats remain valid. However, just for the sake of intellectual curiosity I wanted to point out that even if we had done stats on number of photos, the greater numbers of photos being lost at each location would simply translate into a higher value of the standard deviation for that data set. As a result, the fact that Mike Rossi would be further from the average would not translate into a spuriously low probability as you seemed to fear. (Actually, add in the fact that there are like 5 pictures of Mike crossing the finish line, and if anything this method wouldn't condemn Mike as badly.)

But anyway, the real problem with the # of photos method would be that the distribution probably wouldn't be as normal, because smaller numbers of factors (getting missed at a smaller number of locations where more pictures were taken) might have a bigger impact. This would make the z-test method less valid.

Wow. So he DOES have GPS data. Why would he not share it?

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

"Yahoo Canada asked if Rossi had any GPS logs of his training, or of his race at Lehigh Valley. He said yes, but declined to provide them for verification."

This popped up 28 minutes ago. Pretty good detail of the Rossi cheating so far.