They both work now.
They both work now.
Meza, whom we reached by phone, insists that he has never intentionally broken the rules. “I took up running for fun. What I can tell you is that I did not cut. My last few marathons I have had to step off the course, looking for a place to pee. I didn’t know this was against the rules, I was not aware of that. I’ve done this several times. I’ve realized my problem is that I don’t hydrate properly. I have never cut the distance but I have stepped off of the course.”
When asked about his CIM disqualification, Meza says, “I was disqualified five years ago from the CIM. They told me that I’d run a 36-minute 10K to finish the race. I said that I hadn’t done that and I agreed with them and said that they should disqualify me. If there’s any doubt, disqualify me. I run for fun.”
He continues, “The next time I run a race I will use a Garmin. I’m pretty old school so I hadn’t used Garmin or Strava before, but I won’t ever run a race without it again. This is not my job. I don’t get paid for it. A lot of people don’t even know I’m a runner. I do this for fun, and right now this isn’t fun. Once I get over the shock and awe of all of this I would like to get back to my training.”
Unfortunately, there is no mention of the most damning evidence which is the second video showing Frank hanging around at the bus stop for nearly a minute. This just sounds like it is a possible misunderstanding involving an unscheduled pee break.
It would be good if Derek could contact the magazine to point out their omission.
It must have been locked while they were editing it or still writing.
That does totally suck that they left out the most damning evidence.
In that video he was obviously not just a runner who had step off the course to pee.
Dogfish wrote: I wonder what the motivation for the LA Marathon to not DQ FM after the damning evidence and nicely put together by Doubler? Did they think it would just go away?
Aren't there procedural rules in place here? Can a race director just decide to DQ someone, even months later? From a procedural perspective there should be a formal complaint, an opportunity to respond to the complaint and a final verdict. A third party sending an email to the RD isn't a formal complaint so that from their point of view nothing really happened so far. At least I hope there is a procedural explanation for their non-action.
I left a comment on the article letting them know there was more evidence that they missed in the article and provided links to marathoninvestigation.com and the YouTube vid.
Let's see if it gets approved. Others should comment as well. Let them know of their oversight.
Wyman wrote:
Dogfish wrote: I wonder what the motivation for the LA Marathon to not DQ FM after the damning evidence and nicely put together by Doubler? Did they think it would just go away?
Aren't there procedural rules in place here? Can a race director just decide to DQ someone, even months later? From a procedural perspective there should be a formal complaint, an opportunity to respond to the complaint and a final verdict. A third party sending an email to the RD isn't a formal complaint so that from their point of view nothing really happened so far. At least I hope there is a procedural explanation for their non-action.
I am sure there are procedures in place, but they were not followed. Derek was told that they were not going to DQ FM, and they would just to make sure to have a spotter for him the next time he runs their marathon.
RD can absolutely DQ after the fact, even months later.
I have a horrible feeling Frank will claim the damning video footage of him is the moment he took the piss (literally in this case) before continuing his impressive run.
It's laughable when he states he'll be wearing a Garmin future. If he does run again, which is doubtful, it'll be a 'no pressure just for fun' 5hr marathon or 60min 10km to support a slower friend/colleague/family member, like the disgraced outed Maude Gorman has now started doing.
Canadian Running missed a lot.
The evidence was not that he was off the course. It’s that he never appeared on the course at the locations that he stepped off.
It’s that he was off the course for two long periods of time after stating that he stepped off for a few seconds.
And, of course, the Phoenix video evidence.
But, his statements and this incomplete article practically forces me to follow up to address his response.
Agree wrote:
gloopers wrote:
Sorry that I didn't spend my entire morning reading an 80+ page thread. F***ing LR posters, the biggest collection of dbags in the running community.
You have to understand that the crazies that obsess over these cheating threads think that it is perfectly normal and that everyone has read every post and poured through every picture like them.
gloopers is Agree, the same IP.
Yup.... wrote:
ExpertKipWatcher wrote:
The usual "people who care about cheating must be psychos" trolls have arrived, yawn - seen it all before every time a major cheat has been uncovered.
Yup. They're like cockroaches in reverse. The light goes on to illuminate cheating Frankie and they come scurrying out from the cracks and crevices, making everyone's skin crawl.
yet here you are posting under Yup...
see the irony there, Mr. Cockroach?
If you go to The Canadian Running Facebook page, you can comment on the omissions.
doubler wrote:
Canadian Running missed a lot.
The evidence was not that he was off the course. It’s that he never appeared on the course at the locations that he stepped off.
It’s that he was off the course for two long periods of time after stating that he stepped off for a few seconds.
And, of course, the Phoenix video evidence.
But, his statements and this incomplete article practically forces me to follow up to address his response.
Who the heck says they don't hydrate properly and mean they OVER-hydrate, thus having to urinate?
Show of hands...
That's what I thought.
doubler wrote:
If you go to The Canadian Running Facebook page, you can comment on the omissions.
Already did and others should too.
You have to scroll all the way to the bottom of the page, the one at the end of the article doesn't work, but the one all the way down does.
Confuzzled wrote:
doubler wrote:
If you go to The Canadian Running Facebook page, you can comment on the omissions.
Already did and others should too.
You have to scroll all the way to the bottom of the page, the one at the end of the article doesn't work, but the one all the way down does.
Oops, I was referring to submitting an omission from the website article not on FB.
doubler wrote:
Canadian Running missed a lot.
The evidence was not that he was off the course. It’s that he never appeared on the course at the locations that he stepped off.
It’s that he was off the course for two long periods of time after stating that he stepped off for a few seconds.
And, of course, the Phoenix video evidence.
But, his statements and this incomplete article practically forces me to follow up to address his response.
You might be getting a fair bit more publicity anyway Derek.
I have just had a reply from SWNS media group who are interested in the story and wanted more details. They represent The Daily Telegraph, The Sun Newspaper and The Mail Online amongst others.
As well as giving them more background detail (they couldn't find anything about his "world record" online, so I linked them to the Lloyola High school claim), I mainly referred them to your site and linked them to articles that The Guardian and the BBC did on you to prove that you were above board and legitimate.
'
Frank's excuse from the article wrote:
Meza, whom we reached by phone, insists that he has never intentionally broken the rules. “I took up running for fun. What I can tell you is that I did not cut. My last few marathons I have had to step off the course, looking for a place to pee. I didn’t know this was against the rules, I was not aware of that. I’ve done this several times. I’ve realized my problem is that I don’t hydrate properly. I have never cut the distance but I have stepped off of the course.”
When asked about his CIM disqualification, Meza says, “I was disqualified five years ago from the CIM. They told me that I’d run a 36-minute 10K to finish the race. I said that I hadn’t done that and I agreed with them and said that they should disqualify me. If there’s any doubt, disqualify me. I run for fun.”
He continues, “The next time I run a race I will use a Garmin. I’m pretty old school so I hadn’t used Garmin or Strava before, but I won’t ever run a race without it again. This is not my job. I don’t get paid for it. A lot of people don’t even know I’m a runner. I do this for fun, and right now this isn’t fun. Once I get over the shock and awe of all of this I would like to get back to my training.”
Unfortunately, there is no mention of the most damning evidence which is the second video showing Frank hanging around at the bus stop for nearly a minute. This just sounds like it is a possible misunderstanding involving an unscheduled pee break.
It would be good if Derek could contact the magazine to point out their omission.
no, it's NOT a possible misunderstanding involving an unscheduled pee break. are you a moron?
nice try but you definitely rode the short bus to school or of course, you're the defendant.
what an embarrassing post. is it Frank or someone who knows him.
Wait a second: Frank admitted the following to Derek and Canadian Running Magazine: that he "peed" so I guess strike 2 means the dq is on it's way from the LA Marathon. Hey, frank you pee you pay.
LA Marathon Rules
"Sportsmanship"
"All participants are expected to conduct themselves in a professional and courteous manner during their participation in the Event. This means, for example, that urinating or defecating anywhere on or near the course shall be strictly prohibited except in toilet facilities. Anyone violating this rule of conduct shall be disqualified from the Event and will be asked to leave the course."
More on the way Derek wrote:
doubler wrote:
Canadian Running missed a lot.
The evidence was not that he was off the course. It’s that he never appeared on the course at the locations that he stepped off.
It’s that he was off the course for two long periods of time after stating that he stepped off for a few seconds.
And, of course, the Phoenix video evidence.
But, his statements and this incomplete article practically forces me to follow up to address his response.
You might be getting a fair bit more publicity anyway Derek.
I have just had a reply from SWNS media group who are interested in the story and wanted more details. They represent The Daily Telegraph, The Sun Newspaper and The Mail Online amongst others.
As well as giving them more background detail (they couldn't find anything about his "world record" online, so I linked them to the Lloyola High school claim), I mainly referred them to your site and linked them to articles that The Guardian and the BBC did on you to prove that you were above board and legitimate.
'
He stood there for a long time before jumping in and that is actual proof. He was not peeing. Here come the wild outlandish excuses, buckle up people, this is going to be too funny to believe.
Yup...I'm dumb wrote:
yet here you are posting under Yup...
see the irony there, Mr. Cockroach?
Even though no one can see you, you're clearly a rather sensitive insect aren't you?