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

"Philly to New York, baby!"

We might see some push ups at the finish line. At the very least he'll be wearing a shirt with a message to all us haters. Yeah because that'll show us all! Not the fact that he'll have a hard time breaking 5 hrs.

No shortcuts wrote:

"Philly to New York, baby!"

iiagdtr wrote:

If it runs like a teen girl and tweets like a teen girl....

Bit unfair to teen girls everywhere to compare them to a POS like Rossi. Being a teen girl doesn't mean you can't run, as, for example, Alana Hadley (at 16 ran just under 2:42) and recently Alisa Vainio, 17, ran a 2:33:34. I think there are a few runners on here who wish they could run like a teen girl.

You have a point. But do we really want to disparage preteens?

run.run wrote:

iiagdtr wrote:

If it runs like a teen girl and tweets like a teen girl....

Bit unfair to teen girls everywhere to compare them to a POS like Rossi. Being a teen girl doesn't mean you can't run, as, for example, Alana Hadley (at 16 ran just under 2:42) and recently Alisa Vainio, 17, ran a 2:33:34. I think there are a few runners on here who wish they could run like a teen girl.

finisher medal wrote:

But if I were Rossi's lawyer I would immediately fight you on the attempted revocation . . . breaking the 12 month window to perform as originally offered is not an easy sell as a breach defense..

I am not their attorney nor do I have all the facts at hand, so my only advice to Brojos would be to actually contact an attorney who specializes in contracts. Don't rely on ANYTHING here.

Not a lawyer at all, so I'm not claiming detailed knowledge here. I raise these points out of my own curiosity. I may be completely ignorant on parts of this and welcome any correction.

The only condition of the $10k offer was completion of the marathon in the specified time. So Mike doesn't have to give them any advance notice and the brojos couldn't revoke the offer mid-race. But why can't they revoke it right up until any race Mike is in starts? They could revoke the offer by updating the article or posting a new one and it doesn't matter whether or not Mike sees the revocation. If they found out he was running NYC for real, they could post an update to the article 10 seconds before the gun goes off if they wanted. I suppose an argument could be made that even training for a marathon should be considered performance against the condition of the contract, but I'd need a lot of convincing of that if I was on the jury. I can't come up with an rationale where that makes sense. Registering for NYC, travelling, etc., wouldn't really cut it for me. The condition is completing the marathon in under 3:25:00. Performance against that condition doesn't start until the race clock does. Actually I'd argue it doesn't start until he crosses the line and his time officially starts.

In the case of the $100k, there is the additional condition of notification to the brojos. That seems to work in Mike's favor. By simply telling the brojos that he accepts the $100k challenge, wouldn't Mike have begun performance and so the offer couldn't be revoked?

You said yourself that the offer can be revoked up until performance begins and since Mike has neither crossed the starting line at any of the race distances in the offer nor has he notified the brojos he intends to complete the $100k challenge, what is your rationale for saying that he has begun performance and the offer can't be revoked or modified?

SmartRunnr wrote:

Last, it may be interesting to note that the 100k offer is explicitly for a 3:11:45, not for a "3:11:45 or better".

It's a shame that Mike suffered a setback likely caused by his ambitiously fast return to hard quality sessions..

Lawyers please stop with the nonsense. The $100,000 applies for 3:11:45 or faster. If you "run a four minute mile" that means you broke 4:00 in the mile.

Similarly, I assumed running aficianados would understand why we would want to be notified of the runs ahead of time. It's simply so we can confirm the performances are legitimate.

We need notification ahead of time because we need to verify that a) he ran the correct distance on a legitimate, certified, non aided course and b) is drug free.

What setback did Rossi suffer? He only has until the end of 2015 to achieve the $10,000 at a non-marathon distance.

I shall point out that Mr. Rossi hasn't taken us up on our offer of $500 to see his phone location history for the day of Lehigh Valley in 2014 or the photos that Rossi's lawyer told us about - photos that Rossi supposedly believed proved he was on the course.

I would happily pay $1000 for those two things so we can write a story about that.

Rojo, Rossi has claimed injury since Boston, but has not verified it, and more likely he's setting up a story to explain why he's so slow.

All you need to do is clarify that Rossi has to give sufficient advance notice (a week, maybe?) of any race in order to be eligible to collect your $. Let him and his lawyer know, and clarify it to the public.

He won't do that, because he knows he can't run that fast.

I interpret the whole point of the money challenge as not to challenge him to do it, but to prove that he can't, and never could.

He posted a partial photo of a radiologist report for his claim. Radiologists make reports but the physician makes the final diagnosis. I know someone who had a radiologist report of various cancers that turned out to more likely be bone deformity many years ago.At any rate the report, like some of his other pics, was "rossied" so we couldn't see the entire thing. His behavior remains that of a cheat and a liar and one who consciously chooses to deceive others. He missed his calling as a politician.

the pictures have emerged and were properly debunked. it's mostly black blurs on someone else's pictures. IIRC for every single picture he claims to be the "black blur", the subsequent picture in the film proves it was someone else.

I did not analyse these pictures myself, I am going by memory here. Others that did the legwork can verify.

First off I want to apologize to observer about yesterday . . . I was in a very bad mood.

Ok, you bring up some interesting points. I do recall them amending their offer to require there be some advance notice... but I don't know exactly which (the $100k but not $10k?).

The modern rule is that you can't revoke once there has been some initiation of performance. It can't just be mere preparation to perform (like if he bought some shoes). But yes a jury might agree that training to run that time is a significant detriment taken on that the offerors should have foreseen would happen. If they tried to cancel a second before the race, then the jury might decide it is unfair and that there was a breach - essentially because it was unfair.

Different side of the same coin . . . if he gave them 1 second of advance notice and they don't pay, the jury could say that 1 second was unreasonable because the purpose of the advance notice requirement was clearly to attend/track/video/whatever the performance . . . so they could say 1 day was reasonable. In that case they would have a defense to breach (it isn't enforceable).

Also, telling someone that you will perform isn't usually the same as performance for unilateral contract. You need to make a solid effort to begin the performance - a simple promise is not sufficient.

The real issue here is that they gave him 12 months explicitly. This is where you'd have to do some legal research, because the party claiming breach (rossi) could claim that the offer needed to be held open (can't revoke before). For the UCC/products and goods there is no consideration required. But for services common law applies, and usually some consideration is required. Rossi could say that his training in preperation for an event that would make brojos money was sufficient consideration, but that is debatable.

In other words, the 12 month thing is what would make revocation not cut and dry IMO. A purely personal speculative opinion.

rojo wrote:

I shall point out that Mr. Rossi hasn't taken us up on our offer of $500 to see his phone location history for the day of Lehigh Valley in 2014 or the photos that Rossi's lawyer told us about - photos that Rossi supposedly believed proved he was on the course.

I would happily pay $1000 for those two things so we can write a story about that.

Are we even sure it was an actual lawyer? Or could it have been Rossi sending a letter on his own?

[quote]finisher medal wrote:

I do recall them amending their offer to require there be some advance notice... but I don't know exactly which (the $100k but not $10k?).

Also, telling someone that you will perform isn't usually the same as performance for unilateral contract. You need to make a solid effort to begin the performance - a simple promise is not sufficient.

[\quote]

The advance notice piece is only mentioned in the $100k which is explicitly noted as an update to the article. The brojos potentially made things more difficult for themselves because the other offers do not make any mention of it. He could conceivably find a race like LVM this weekend, cut the course, get the time, and make claim to the $10k. I don't think it's an unreasonable reading to conclude that the other offers do NOT require advance notice. None of the offers mention anything about independent witnesses, GPS, or even PEDs.

But as for that $100k with advance notice, isn't the act of telling the brojos he's doing it actually meeting a condition of the contract and would therefore be considered performance against the contract?

I agree that the brojos need to get in touch with a lawyer and make an immediate update to the offer with more requirements in place. That should be safe, because as of now, I think Rossi would have a very tough time proving performance, especially given his own recent public Twitter statements that he was just starting back. All of this is meaningless if he has no intention of taking up the challenge, which I think is most likely, but that's because he's both a cheat and a moron.

dgunthert wrote:

But as for that $100k with advance notice, isn't the act of telling the brojos he's doing it actually meeting a condition of the contract and would therefore be considered performance against the contract?

Yeah bro like I said I don't know all the facts nor wish to do any real analysis without getting paid for my time . . . .

but earlier I thought you asked if performance started if he simply said he accepted the challenge and I said no a promise to perform is not performance.

as for giving notice I'm sure that could possibly constitute performance, but I wouldn't say whether or not it is probably without actually doing any research (a lawyer's gut reaction is only as good as their understanding of case law).

Like I said before I think the most interesting issue is the 12 months they said he had to perform . . . seems like it would be unfair to revoke before that time limit is over . . . that is once again something you'd have to look up and believe me your typical lawyer ain't gonna do that unless they get paid. time is money.

That one was clear... short of a picture or video actually showing him walking out of the course they were too scared and lazy to deal with the situation appropriately. They smelled drama and ducked. Also, the thought of his DQ setting a precedent made them $hit the bed and try to sweep this one under the carpet. These people simply don't want to deal with controversy or have to do more work to catch cheaters. In their mind it was easier to let this one go and spend a bit more money on some mats then to have this boil over on social media. Remember that usually someone's head rolls when things get too ugly so it was to no one's interest to give thing even more publicity. My guess is there is a lot more about the race organization and organizers that they didn't want to get out there. Smart move as again, almost no one running that race really cares whether they DQ Mike or not.

Hobby Ironmanner wrote:

rojo wrote:

I shall point out that Mr. Rossi hasn't taken us up on our offer of $500 to see his phone location history for the day of Lehigh Valley in 2014 or the photos that Rossi's lawyer told us about - photos that Rossi supposedly believed proved he was on the course.

I would happily pay $1000 for those two things so we can write a story about that.

Are we even sure it was an actual lawyer? Or could it have been Rossi sending a letter on his own?

Hobby Ironmanner, I like you. But you don't know squat.

Of course it is an actual lawyer. Do you think they go around giving AOL accounts to just anyone???

Occasionally we can lol and not be ashamed.lol

EZPass Mike wrote:

Hobby Ironmanner wrote:

Are we even sure it was an actual lawyer? Or could it have been Rossi sending a letter on his own?

Hobby Ironmanner, I like you. But you don't know squat.

Of course it is an actual lawyer. Do you think they go around giving AOL accounts to just anyone???

bored troLLer wrote:

bored troiier wrote:

Not only is this thread boring I've just noticed some prick up the page has hijacked and bast@rdized my handle.

WTF is a troiier? your handle makes no sense, mate.

"troiier"?, prove it, it says troller so it's troller, what don't you understand about that, it would only make no sense to an idiot. You're down there with scumbag Rossi and all the other oxygen thieves when it comes to manipulating the truth and others handles.

So a records eligible course means what? IAAF world record? So Boston is out. And exactly how are you gonna get him to submit to a drug test??? Hope that he wins the whole thing? I mean the ideas are good but I am now more confused than ever.

Article offer words below:

How confident? We will give Mr. Rossi $10,000 if he breaks 3:25 in the marathon (standard course) in the next 12 months. That’s nearly 20 seconds a miler slower than his “official” PR. Update on 7/17/2015: We will pay him $100,000 if he runs 3:11:45 on a legitimate records-eligible course in the next 12 months where we have advanced notice of his participation ($10,000 per year for 10 years). A media outlet interviewed us today and asked about how the 3:25 challenge came about and we said, “We tried to come up with a time that was at least theoretically possible to preemptively rule out his excuse of, ‘I can’t be expected to have the race of my life once again.'”

Now, we know it’s possible he’ll say he is injured and doesn’t have the time/motivation to train for the marathon. So we’ll also give him $10,000 if by the end of 2015 he breaks 70:00 in a standard 10-mile course or 20:00 for 5k. 70:00 for 10 miles is equivalent to 3:16:30 for the marathon according to McMillan and 20:00 for 5k is equivalent to 3:14:53 in marathon according to McMillan.

Not trolling here, but most of you know that.

Mike could probably run his BQ time with 12 months of solid mileage and say 50-70 mpw marathon plan targeting the race. He is basically running low miles then ramping up for a 16-18 wks. Those 10-20mpw are now allowing him to get the base for him to actually develop in the off season(s).

There is not a thing wrong with 10-20mpw for fitness and health. But you can't expect to run a good marathon on it.

12 months and 9 of those at 40mpw+ and he could get that BQ without cheating.

And if Mike is reading (I know you are) I sincerely mean all this.