at this point I'm starting to doubt the validity of her easy runs
-
180
-
WatchMe wrote:
I think the Berlin 3.09 in 2016 is being misinterpreted. Firstly for London 2017 Champs entry there are two much faster qualifying times from 2015 a 3.00 and a 3.04. Secondly the 3.09 sits sensibly with other race results over that year before and after.
still seems odd you would stop your watch when you have not finished
60 -
mehvilles wrote:
2subtle4u wrote:
Winthorpe53 and a few others have expressed feeling uncomfortable at seeing someone publicly shamed. I feel the same discomfort.
I'll only speak for myself.
I think she did something shameful. The sense of justice in me sincerely hopes that she will suffer consequences for her actions, actions entirely and premeditatedly her own.
But I reject the notion that I can't feel bad for her in her humiliation as a fellow flawed human being. It's an empathy thing, I guess. It's just my gut reaction to seeing her in this situation. Others' gut reactions range more toward the vengeance end of the spectrum. Ok, fine. We've all got different guts. But we share the same sense of justice, I think.
At a public execution, we're all there to see justice done, but some flock to the front row at the foot of the scaffold and others tend to look away.
The problem is there’s not an “agreement” on what justice is. A lot of crazies think it is loss of employment for any and every person who has cheated in a race.
I think there are levels of cheating and certain jobs that can't allow for that. You work at a running publication and are bragging over social media about your false running accomplishments and go to great lengths to cheat several times then there should be some good repercussions. It's like the other guy that got caught the same way that was the High School coach, he eventually lost his job.
112 -
I'm a bit torn on the topic of marathon investigation. I think Derek does a good job of limiting public exposure to those that are public figures, at least in the running/fitness world. He does cross the line a bit and cover some "non-public figures", such as the Sarasota winner in a recent article, but in that case he didn't include a full name in the article. His services also provide value in giving integrity to race results (at least when it comes to course cutting - which I believe to be only a small portion of cheaters). On the other hand, I don't know of any instance of one of his articles doing as much good that seems worth it compared to the harm that may have been brought about to others (say family members of Frank Meza). I find myself going back to read this article:
Sage Canaday/RunningWild released a podcast/youtube video recently covering the topic of professional runner vs. "influencer". Sage described one of his concerns about influencers being misleading by using PEDs and passing their results off as natural - by likening it to course cutting and then publicizing ones own accomplishment. Ultimately, I know a huge number of amateur runners are using PEDs. I'm sure the numbers are above the number of course cutters, bib mules etc. Do I care? Not really. Even if they are winning age groups? Only enough that I think they should just be suspended like they would be if caught with PEDs. Why should I feel any different about a course cutter? It's also a bit different for amateurs than professional athletes, who are always in high demand/low supply and will be paid to compete as soon as their punishment is over. In the the amateur's case, having photos/articles posted by Derek could have real impact to a teacher looking for a job 10 years after they cut a course. Should it? I don't know the answer to that, but by some of Derek's articles, he is effectively ruling that it should have a lifelong impact for those individuals in the future.
PEDs have been normalized a bit due to the large number of professionals being caught for PED usage, to the point it feels "less bad" than cutting a course. But it really isn't. It's equally against the rules. I don't know where I was going with this post, but I guess my point is, unless a person is a professional runner, I'd prefer a world where we aren't publicly outing course cutters or bib mules unless the punishment felt equal to if they were caught with PEDs. My guess is the Telegraph or Inside Edition isn't running with big stories when an age grouper is caught using EPO. Why is it done for course cutting? Save the hit pieces for child molesters or other crimes that actually harm people more than being denied entry into some race.
710 -
Thundersnow wrote:
mehvilles wrote:
The problem is there’s not an “agreement” on what justice is. A lot of crazies think it is loss of employment for any and every person who has cheated in a race.
I just want these cheaters to come clean with a mea culpa and a promise to do better moving forward. Instead, they double down, toss out words like "defamation" and lawsuit, and refuse to accept any culpability whatsoever.
And if they don’t mea culpa to your content?
35 -
From the comments in that 2016 Guardian link:
Kate, how especially awful to stomp your way round Berlin and look like Rosie Ruiz in the results.
Indeed.
121 -
who's to say? wrote:
at this point I'm starting to doubt the validity of her easy runs
I think she has the burden of RW Queen Bee complex. Someone at a higher up level like her probably is burdened with the desire to be a decent/fast runner. All of this of no importance if she wasn't the editor of RW. What a strange world we're living in.
30 -
WatchMe wrote:
I think the Berlin 3.09 in 2016 is being misinterpreted. Firstly for London 2017 Champs entry there are two much faster qualifying times from 2015 a 3.00 and a 3.04. Secondly the 3.09 sits sensibly with other race results over that year before and after. And I think the people on here can pick out the clearly much slower results over that year 2017 and estimate that these may not have been raced at full effort.
At 2023 not the London marathon, there is a photo posted somewhere earlier that shows the statement ' London Marathon I love you 3.18.20ish' which is a strange choice of words to make truly clear that their supposed run over the course on that day was absoloutely not a london marathon 'result. On that photo you can see the first 6 km splits before the photo ends. First 5km are all close to 4.50 or just under, so around 3.24 pace. then the 6th km shows as 4.09. This is the downhill one where people gain about 10 secs with the drop. I think banking about 30 secs against target pace in a single km, as early as the 6th km, is quite a hard way to set the base for a better than expected finish time.
But keep in mind, she's admitted that file was fake, and as such, so are the splits. She is almost certain to have used GPX Studio to create it: when you use that tool, you can say how fast you want the run to be, and you can ask it to randomise the splits somewhat to take elevation into account. AND, she accidentally reversed it (super easy to do; bit of a design flaw), so there is no downhill in kilometre 6. Instead, if you look at the end of the run, there is an *uphill* "into" Greenwich: https://i.imgur.com/nEynPiR.png I took this from her original Strava entry, and you can see the sloppy/mistaken bits in Canary Wharf and Wapping, even with the map zoomed out.
Basically, those splits are the invention of GPX Studio. We'll never know what she really did out there.
50 -
This quoted post has been removed.
I can’t decide whether to believe you or not…
on one hand, it seems plausible. If he’s willing to cheat at the marathon, maybe he’ll cheat the consequences of doing so. And if that’s the case, then it’s kind of funny.
but man, I’d feel guilty for laughing if you’re wrong
51 -
Canadians wrote:
This quoted post has been removed.
I can’t decide whether to believe you or not…
on one hand, it seems plausible. If he’s willing to cheat at the marathon, maybe he’ll cheat the consequences of doing so. And if that’s the case, then it’s kind of funny.
but man, I’d feel guilty for laughing if you’re wrong
Of course he is wrong. A body was found, a coroner's report, etc.
My god, let him and his memory rest in peace, will you?!
Frankly, that comment needs to be removed. It is that insulting.
53 -
mehvilles wrote:
You are most definition that no one has called for any other race cheater to lose their job. This is the sad norm not the exception.
why is it a sad norm? as an employer, i certainly don't want to employ a cheat and a liar.
62 -
Let's Be Realistic wrote:
Whether she knowing cheated or not, the ever-changing stories are alarming -- from accidentally uploading another person's run file to manually creating one after running a good time.
Regardless what really happened, I appreciate Kate for showing us her moral compass. As a journalist, credibility is everything. Once you've lost it, regaining trust is hard.
Luckily, her clippings cover little hard news:Her contributions are mostly race reports and advertorials like top X product lists, likely a reflection of Runner's World's direction. So having someone with questionable integrity is low risk there, since the casual reader understands the listed items are often paid promotions or provided free for review.
She told the Daily Mail yesterday:
"I had a legitimate place [in London 2023], which I had earned through a time qualifier."
But I only see a 88:04 HM in her 2022 results - was that enough to qualify for a place?40 -
miss matt wrote:
Let's Be Realistic wrote:
Whether she knowing cheated or not, the ever-changing stories are alarming -- from accidentally uploading another person's run file to manually creating one after running a good time.
Regardless what really happened, I appreciate Kate for showing us her moral compass. As a journalist, credibility is everything. Once you've lost it, regaining trust is hard.
Luckily, her clippings cover little hard news:Her contributions are mostly race reports and advertorials like top X product lists, likely a reflection of Runner's World's direction. So having someone with questionable integrity is low risk there, since the casual reader understands the listed items are often paid promotions or provided free for review.
She told the Daily Mail yesterday:
"I had a legitimate place [in London 2023], which I had earned through a time qualifier."
But I only see a 88:04 HM in her 2022 results - was that enough to qualify for a place?
This. 100%. Either there's a race missing from her Po10 OR she is lying again...
30 -
No official race time, missed timing points, watches going dead (although its clearly on in the pictures) coming off the course then rejoining at a different point, cutting the timing chip of the bib, folding the bib so you can't see the number, uploading backwards data to Strava Uploading another persons run to Strava ....
Its incredible how many strange things have happened to her can honestly say non of these have ever happened to me in 20 years of entering marathons and HM.
This post was edited 1 minute after it was posted.180 -
100% funkhouser! 25+ marathons never missed a mat. Garmin/Strava might have hiccup with satellite on a mile/km split but never had it die on me and overall time was always right. Where there is smoke there is fire.......
80 -
miss matt wrote:
Let's Be Realistic wrote:
Whether she knowing cheated or not, the ever-changing stories are alarming -- from accidentally uploading another person's run file to manually creating one after running a good time.
Regardless what really happened, I appreciate Kate for showing us her moral compass. As a journalist, credibility is everything. Once you've lost it, regaining trust is hard.
Luckily, her clippings cover little hard news:Her contributions are mostly race reports and advertorials like top X product lists, likely a reflection of Runner's World's direction. So having someone with questionable integrity is low risk there, since the casual reader understands the listed items are often paid promotions or provided free for review.
She told the Daily Mail yesterday:
"I had a legitimate place [in London 2023], which I had earned through a time qualifier."
But I only see a 88:04 HM in her 2022 results - was that enough to qualify for a place?
It isn't enough to qualify for a place, no. 87:59 would be a Championship qualifying half marathon, but you can't quality for a GFA place with a Half. Gutting to miss out by that small margin, but also, that's sport.
As far as I can tell, she had no qualifying run for 2023. I would guess she got the place based on connections. Nothing wrong with that in an of itself if they do official press passes, etc., but yeah - if that's how you got in, own it.
60 -
WatchMe wrote:
.
Couple of her coaching insights here folks . “Elite
athletes hit the wall comparably rarely, partly through a question of simple
maths. After all, many of them just aren’t running long enough for it to become
an issue – lucky sods. But it certainly does happen.” Oh dear oh dear
Then “One
of the most painful few minutes of “running” you can possibly watch is the
final stretches of Switzerland’s Gabriela Andersen-Schiess’ 1984 Olympic
marathon. Utterly exhausted, barely able to keep her head up, powered only by
sheer bloody-mindedness, she crosses the line and collapses into the arms of
the officials. The epitome of the Olympic spirit.” The thing is, it was
heatstroke which you can incur when fully stacked with
carbs, because it’s something different. Great case studies from some of the sport's major gurus.This post took me down a rabbit hole. I was betting that in 1984 they didn't have a clue about sports nutrition or hydration. I couldn't find anything specific about the offerings at the 1984 Olympic Marathon aid stations, but I'd wager all that was officially provided was tap water and no nutrition. But I did find this interesting article about the history of Olympic Marathon fueling & hydration...
1904: St. Louis USA
Some of the earliest records of dubious practices were from the 1904 marathon, the reports of what some of the athletes ingested is crazy. The marathon event in 1904 was held in St Louis, Missouri USA, on a very hot day. Unfortunately the chief organizer was interested in 'purposeful dehydration', a misguided area of scientific research at the turn of the century that believed that dehydration was beneficial to the athletes. Consequently, the organizers only allowed one water station on the entire marathon course. As well as purposely dehydrating the runners, the winner Tom Hicks had to be sustained by doses of a concoction of brandy, egg white, and strychnine during the race, which probably helped him to finish the grueling event. His trainer believed this was stimulating his nervous system, however, they would have to reconsider this recommendation, as in the end, he had to be dragged across the finish line! Strychnine is now used as rat poison, it is hard to see how such a product could be beneficial to a runner.10 -
efferf wrote:
mehvilles wrote:
You are most definition that no one has called for any other race cheater to lose their job. This is the sad norm not the exception.
why is it a sad norm? as an employer, i certainly don't want to employ a cheat and a liar.
Because it’s not the place for rando loonies on the internet to reach out to cheater’s employers trying to get them to lose their employment. If your employees cheat and you want to fire them over it, have at it.
13 -
mehvilles wrote:
efferf wrote:
why is it a sad norm? as an employer, i certainly don't want to employ a cheat and a liar.
Because it’s not the place for rando loonies on the internet to reach out to cheater’s employers trying to get them to lose their employment. If your employees cheat and you want to fire them over it, have at it.
So if they get away with it then it's OK. Got it.
22
1 post was removed from this page.
What People Are Talking About On LetsRun
No top threads at the moment. Check back soon.