Potentially Suspicious Runner To Run 836 Miles in 9 Days for "Charity"

Yeah, I don't think there is any malice from Scott Overall or High Brasher now that Terrie has revealed her communications with them. It is very poor communication from them to us, though. We wouldn't even know Terrie and Dave sent them GPS data if Terrie didn't tell us (thanks, Terrie!).

When Scott and Hugh are more talkative, I will need to push them to be more open and set up trusted channels of communication where we don't get ignored. With how little they communicate with LRC, they only breed mistrust between us and them, especially when we invariably get another scammer in the future.

I agree that we are far more technically capable than either Scott or Hugh. They have neither the computer science or mathematical background to be keep all evidence for themselves. We would do a much more thorough job of analyzing data than they can.

Scam_Watcheroo wrote:

I just send Hugh an email telling him to contact the Bournemouth Marathon race director about Dave cheating there so Hugh can see how they did it at another race.

It looks like Hugh has been on vacation this past week since Hugh's email auto-replied saying he is back from vacation this Monday June 5th.

I'll ask if he can share some details of what times Dave and Terrie are claiming and what the GPS data contains and if they can share it.

If you look at the photos Terrie posted on this thread on the ultrarunning community group, you can see he's not wearing the chip on his shoe at London.

I've downloaded all the photos and zoomed in. He has light blue shoes and the London chip is red. I see no sign of it.

You might like to mention that to Hugh.

So he doesn't wear it and claims "it was broken" then sends in a phoney bit of data, and THOUGHT he'd got away with it.....Er, no....

Wearing no chip wrote:

If you look at the photos Terrie posted on this thread on the ultrarunning community group, you can see he's not wearing the chip on his shoe at London.

I've downloaded all the photos and zoomed in. He has light blue shoes and the London chip is red. I see no sign of it.

You might like to mention that to Hugh.

So he doesn't wear it and claims "it was broken" then sends in a phoney bit of data, and THOUGHT he'd got away with it.....Er, no....

Good eye!

I will add that there are both blue and red chips at London Marathon as shown in the two pictures of different runners below. But in either case, I zoomed in on Dave's shoes in his photos and I don't see the rectangular shape of either a blue or red tracking chip on either shoes in any of his photos.

This is an important find that Scott Overall and Hugh Brasher have no idea about! I will share it with them when they get to the office on Monday. Hopefully they will be more talkative now.

Nice sleuthing!

Watch data wrote:

Huh? He can post to Strava and make it public. Terrie claims she already sent Scott the data, so why can't WE see it. I doubt Scott sent it to be examined to test for it being tampered with.

Anything at all can be posted, in the case of Garmins it is the FIT file on the device that needs to be examined, I don't believe you can do that with Tom Toms

From what I've heard, the London is legitimate. Bournemouth? Not sure about yet.

Jiggery-pokery wrote:

From what I've heard, the London is legitimate. Bournemouth? Not sure about yet.

No it is not legit, the 2016 London Marathon result is now being investigated by Hugh Brasher, the head race director.

For the Bournemouth Marathon, Dave got his result deleted because he cheated and is likely banned for life.

Scam_Watcheroo wrote:

Jiggery-pokery wrote:

From what I've heard, the London is legitimate. Bournemouth? Not sure about yet.

No it is not legit, the 2016 London Marathon result is now being investigated by Hugh Brasher, the head race director.

For the Bournemouth Marathon, Dave got his result deleted because he cheated and is likely banned for life.

I heard from London that they had a lot of inquires, but have not found a reason to dq.

Jiggery-pokery wrote:

I heard from London that they had a lot of inquires, but have not found a reason to dq.

I've run London 5 times - each time I have noticed the prominent signs that say "No chip - no time"

He didn't hit one mat, that isn't a faulty chip - that is he didn't have a chip or he didn't run over any mats.

Which London, the 4:19 on their results or the 3:12 Dave and Terrie claim he ran?

Jiggery-pokery wrote:

I heard from London that they had a lot of inquires, but have not found a reason to dq.

Terrie, is that you again?

ExpertKipWatcher wrote:

Jiggery-pokery wrote:

I heard from London that they had a lot of inquires, but have not found a reason to dq.

I've run London 5 times - each time I have noticed the prominent signs that say "No chip - no time"

He didn't hit one mat, that isn't a faulty chip - that is he didn't have a chip or he didn't run over any mats.

Perhaps you should voice your concern to London. I'm sure they will provide you with answer like they did me.

Jiggery-pokery wrote:

Perhaps you should voice your concern to London. I'm sure they will provide you with answer like they did me.

Yep, it's Terrie again! Hi Terrie! We found out that Dave didn't even wear his tracking chip for London Marathon. They are going to be pissed that you two lied.

Jiggery-pokery wrote:

Perhaps you should voice your concern to London. I'm sure they will provide you with answer like they did me.

Such as? The guessing games suggest guilt, anyone who has real answers doesn't play games.

I'm fairly sure the London chips are only red. If someone is wearing one that looks another colour maybe that's left over from another race.

Either way, he's not wearing ANY chip!

The chip story never washed with me anyway, as Terrie said in April that "the chip MIGHT have broken, who knows". Yet recently said that back in May 2016 she told London the chip DEFINITELY was broken.

Now there's no chip at all!

Jiggery-pokery wrote:

From what I've heard, the London is legitimate. Bournemouth? Not sure about yet.

Wrong again Terrie.

You've still ignored ALL my questions.

Let's see the Tom Tom data you sent to Scott.

You will have to show it to Hugh, and oh dear, tampering with data to scam the head of London ain't cool.

Where were YOU during London marathon?

Did YOU see him at the start? On the course? Just at the finish?

Why wasn't he wearing the chip AT ALL?

Why did you say on here in April that "the chip might of been faulty, who knows".

Yet on Ultrarunning Community a few days ago you said, "in May 2016 we told London the chip was broken and faulty".

So two different stories there.

And now I see there never WAS a chip on his shoe!

Nothing to say about why Dave was removed from the Bournemouth results?

Why would that happen if he didn't cheat?

You are aware his recorded split times were impossible, hence why he was kicked out and disqualified.

Don't have anything to say? I feel so sad you ignore ALL my questions...

Re the now missing chip, you're all forgetting one thing, Dave's a highly trained, finely tuned athlete, he can't be expected to wear a contraption like that as it may upset his physical and mental equilibrium.

If Terrie and Dave say he did it, but they don't want to produce the evidence, that's fine by me, after all it is for charity and that overrides everything, even if the charity didn't get any of the money.

Of course, there's still the little matter of lying about the 3:12, including to a double amputee war hero, the very people Dave and Terrie are supposed to be helping.

Hugh has confirmed that he has received my last emails with the evidence for Bournemouth and for Dave not wearing a timing chip at all. But he is not very talkative (until he finishes the investigation) and I don't think he wants to share the TomTom data at this point. I did let him know the TomTom data can be faked if he wants us to help analyze it.

Dropping back in to see if you guys still spend your Saturday nights investigating and posting about slow cheaters - yep! Keep up the good work you social butterflies.

I had a date booked with your mom on Saturday but it turned out that she had too many clients scheduled for that day and was working over time to make everyone "happy".