psycho_spotter wrote:
So I must be a troll or contrarian to point out that it is indecent to bombard this cheater's CEO/school administration with emails?
No, that is simply suggesting to the over-excitable that they have lost their sense of perspective.
I agree - the hubris and brazenness to cheat to obtain world record times is astounding on so many levels. Terribly disrespectful to the late Ed Whitlock. I think way worse than Litton.
Litton was actually an ok 3:10 (on a good day) marathoner who desperately wanted for whatever reason to be a sub 3 guy and things got out of control. His psychopathology and disguises were epic though.
Impressive that it went mostly under the radar for so long. A 2:52 marathoner high school coach should be able to run and train w the varsity boys. I would be interested in if he ever did or whether all his training was in “secret”.
Kung Pow Chicken wrote:
Com'on now.
This guy should absolutely receive running related sanctions, but it's just plain mean-spirited to contact employers about a this guy's bizarre running related hobby.
He's already suffering, as a large part of his identity -- being a world class age group runner -- has been debunked. He's now a world class serial cheater. No need to go beyond running.
How do you know that? He hasn't even been disqualified from the L.A. Marathon - how is he "suffering"? And if he were, it would only because his stolen prizes and glory have been taken back. Big Deal.
As a doctor, you are rightfully held to a higher ethical standard than the population at large. You have a code of professional conduct that also extends to your private life and I'd wager that being a serial cheat, where honest members of the public are being negatively affected by your cheating, transgresses that code.
I am not saying that people should bombard anyone and everyone connected with Frank to shame him. However, I think his behaviour does at least warrant being scrutinized by those people whose job it is to decide whether someone like Frank is a suitable person to trust with the health and well-being of vulnerable people.
No one is lying or slandering Frank. If he's deemed a fit and proper person to hold such a postion of responsibiltiy then he has nothing to worry about. However, if he isn't then why should he expect to carry on working in a postion that implies and confers a moral authority which he neither possesses or deserves.
psycho_spotter wrote:
So I must be a troll or contrarian to point out that it is indecent to bombard this cheater's CEO/school administration with emails?
And is it "decent" of you to want to perpetuate a situation where patients and parents are deliberately kept in the dark about the "character" of the "professional" who is treating them or "teaching" their children.
.
And is it decent... wrote:
psycho_spotter wrote:
So I must be a troll or contrarian to point out that it is indecent to bombard this cheater's CEO/school administration with emails?
And is it "decent" of you to want to perpetuate a situation where patients and parents are deliberately kept in the dark about the "character" of the "professional" who is treating them or "teaching" their children.
.
Absolutely my inaction is decent. Use more quotes next time so I can understand better, please.
List of AMA's ethics violations. Would certainly say that serial course cutting, cheating and lying come under the "dishonesty" heading:
What is unprofessional conduct?
Legal standards of professional conduct are set by individual state medical licensing boards and may vary from state to state. While there is no single definition of unprofessional conduct, the Federation of State Medical Board defines such conduct as:
Patient abuse
Inadequate record keeping
Failure to meet the standard of care
Prescribing drugs in excess or without legitimate reason
Failing to meet continuing medical education requirements
Dishonesty
Conviction of a felony
Delegating the practice to an unlicensed individual
psycho_spotter wrote:
Absolutely my inaction is decent. Use more quotes next time so I can understand better, please.
Actually it isn't and that's something the apologists like you never get. And you have gone further than inaction. You are actively trying to get others be as inactive, apathetic and morally bankrupt as you are.
So, not very decent at all...
.
You'd fail philosophy 101 wrote:
psycho_spotter wrote:
Absolutely my inaction is decent. Use more quotes next time so I can understand better, please.
Actually it isn't and that's something the apologists like you never get. And you have gone further than inaction. You are actively trying to get others be as inactive, apathetic and morally bankrupt as you are.
So, not very decent at all...
.
I think the fact that he meticulously plotted out how to beat the world record shows a level of hubris that deserves some shaming.
For you see, it’s not just a record. It’s the fraudulent taking, from men who trained extremely hard (Mr. Whitlock and Mr. Dykes), what they rightfully earned — personal achievement and some level of public acclaim. The audacity to steal that and the apologists want there to be no repercussions.
And of course, the stealing of 1st place age group placing from people for whom it might have been something very special.
You'd fail philosophy 101 wrote:
psycho_spotter wrote:
Absolutely my inaction is decent. Use more quotes next time so I can understand better, please.
Actually it isn't and that's something the apologists like you never get. And you have gone further than inaction. You are actively trying to get others be as inactive, apathetic and morally bankrupt as you are.
So, not very decent at all...
.
I like how my pointing out your actions as indecent makes me an "apologist" for some slow old cheater.
I can't believe this crap! I'm literally turning over in my grave! DQ this bum already!
psycho_spotter wrote:
I like how my pointing out your actions as indecent makes me an "apologist" for some slow old cheater.
You are a fool. The bloke is not a road worker or brick layer.....he is a Doctor, mentor, coach...who uses is 'achievements' in sport to promote his standing.
He is dishonest. He was given the chance to come clean, apologise etc, but chose to lie to Derek. He has 'stolen' achievements from others (the people he 'beat' in his AG) and stolen hard worked for records from other athletes.
His employers can decide how much trust they have in him, that is up to them , but they need to be made aware of psychopaths in their organisations.
You're a fool wrote:
psycho_spotter wrote:
I like how my pointing out your actions as indecent makes me an "apologist" for some slow old cheater.
You are a fool. The bloke is not a road worker or brick layer.....he is a Doctor, mentor, coach...who uses is 'achievements' in sport to promote his standing.
He is dishonest. He was given the chance to come clean, apologise etc, but chose to lie to Derek. He has 'stolen' achievements from others (the people he 'beat' in his AG) and stolen hard worked for records from other athletes.
His employers can decide how much trust they have in him, that is up to them , but they need to be made aware of psychopaths in their organisations.
Thank you for writing this. I am 100% agreement with you.
Fred Gwynne wrote:
You're a fool wrote:
You are a fool. The bloke is not a road worker or brick layer.....he is a Doctor, mentor, coach...who uses is 'achievements' in sport to promote his standing.
He is dishonest. He was given the chance to come clean, apologise etc, but chose to lie to Derek. He has 'stolen' achievements from others (the people he 'beat' in his AG) and stolen hard worked for records from other athletes.
His employers can decide how much trust they have in him, that is up to them , but they need to be made aware of psychopaths in their organisations.
Thank you for writing this. I am 100% agreement with you.
Ditto. Well said.
.
I’ve never doubted that you guys are compelled that his employers NEED to be notified. Belief in the appropriateness of one’s actions doesn’t make them sane.
doubler wrote:
RI red wrote:
Derek, does this put the good doctor in the No. 1 all-time spot?
Him and Litton. If only we had access to this sort of evidence with Kip. I’ve Ling wanted to take a fresh look at The Litton story. But It was already looked at in so much detail I don’t know what new information could possibly come out.
You do have the evidence on Litton. Walking on the side of the Boston Marathon course in full attire??? Sure, he started out that way on the line and then planned to remove piece by piece as the race went on. He cheated. No one wears that and is walking during the race but finishes well under 3 hours. Yes, the damming evidence and he can't answer to it.
Informing the employers will backfire. The marathon organizers have not disqualified Meza; ergo he didn't cut the course and has been completely cleared of any wrongdoing. The question is why the organizers chose to vindicate him. It does invite the possibility of corruption since no counter-argument was presented in defense of Meza's "irregularities". Furthermore, it should have been the duty of these same appointed "officials" to have policed their own event. Their duty is not to dismiss the evidence presented by concerned other parties who have performed their job for them.
deadesq wrote:
And from the 2014 SF marathon. Note the lack of the D-ring on his shoes. Other runners have a white D-ring on their shoes in other photos from the same race.
http://d35l3oybk21k7h.cloudfront.net/photos/photos/6277436_race_0.6233717411869687.display.jpg?1406592672http://d35l3oybk21k7h.cloudfront.net/photos/photos/6277416_race_0.3399940168106095.display.jpg?1406592670
This ain't no sub 3 runner
psycho_spotter wrote:
I’ve never doubted that you guys are compelled that his employers NEED to be notified. Belief in the appropriateness of one’s actions doesn’t make them sane.
My word...madness can be appropriate? let's try that in court one day.
You are welcome to your views and welcome to employ people like him.
This is also a new social media age. Future (and current) employers go through SM accounts of employees for good reason, they do not want to be associated with dishonest or inappropriate behaviour
Funeral Express wrote:
Informing the employers will backfire. The marathon organizers have not disqualified Meza; ergo he didn't cut the course and has been completely cleared of any wrongdoing. The question is why the organizers chose to vindicate him. It does invite the possibility of corruption since no counter-argument was presented in defense of Meza's "irregularities". Furthermore, it should have been the duty of these same appointed "officials" to have policed their own event. Their duty is not to dismiss the evidence presented by concerned other parties who have performed their job for them.
The running associations, IAAF, road running bodies or whomever ratify the records should also be advised, and they should know that LA marathon cannot be relied upon as an arbiter
perhaps the DQs and permanent ban at CIM is persuasive enough, even if LA hasn't followed up on Derek's latest evidence.
