This thread was originally titled, "Incredible development in the $612,000 Transcon Goodge run, currently ongoing" but the new title is more descriptive. The description of the run is here.
Here's an interesting thing sent through. How few calories he burnt on May's spectacular acceleration to a 5 day negative split:
So from such numbers as:
April 23: 10,000 cals
24: 9,700
25: 8,200
Then roughly around the 6700 mark for the next 10 days, but then:
6 May: 5,800
7 May: 4,900
8 May: 5,700
9 May: 5,000
10 May: 6,300
11 May: 6,400
12 May: 5,200
13 May: 5,100
14 May: 5,000
15 May: 5,100
On May 19 just 3000 calories burnt.
And it's suddenly hit me right between the eyes: the massive calorie intake of April 23-25 of 9,300 a day? All under my observation.
Looks like WC has estimated these numbers based on the Whoop screenshot on recent IG post. Not that it means much, but I'm going to cross reference these with the numbers pulled from strava:
(Numbers rounded to the nearest 500 cals, 1.0km and 0.5h)
1st May: 6k, 6k, 89km, 11.5h (Significant drop in cals for similar distance & time?)
2: 6k, 6k, 85km, 11h
3: 8k, 6k, 89km, 11h
4: 8k, 7k, 85km, 11.5h
5: 8k, 7k, 89km, 11.5h
6: 6k, 5k, 82km, 11h
7: 5k, 5.5k, 89km, 11.5h
8: 5.5k, 10.5k, 91km, 12.5h (Significant + in Strava cals for an otherwise fairly "normal" / slower day)
9: 5k, 7k, 105km, 13h (Significant + in daily km, with lower cals on both Whoop & Strava)
10: 6.5k, 8k, 100km, 12.5h (Same as 9th)
11: 6.5k, 6k, 100km, 13h (Same as 9th & 10th)
12: 5.5k, 5.5k, 92km, 11.5h
13: 5.5k, 7k, 98km, 12.5h
14: 5k, 7.5k, 89km, 12h
15: 5k, 7.5k, 83km, 12h
16: 7.5k, 8.5k, 97km, 12.5h
17: 8k, 8.5k, 92km, 12h
18: 7k, 8k, 97km, 12.5h
19: 3.5k, 7.5k, 87km, 11.5h (Big discrepancy in cals Whoops vs Strava)
20: 8.5k, 9k, 97km, 13h
21: 6k, 7k, 80km, 12h
22: 8k, 9k, 97km, 13h
Was hoping to see a bit more insight here, but other than the days I've added comments on I can't see much. I scraped the data though so thought it was worth sharing anyway. Maybe someone else can spot something here?
That IS interesting and obvs Whoop should be much higher as it's all day calories not just running - bet that looks even more interesting with an avge heartrate column.
Yep and for my part, I am refusing to engage with Sneakers any more until he comes out from behind his mask. He is claiming made up nonsense about having HR data that none of us have access to - we shouldn't need to. We have 14,000k of filth, it's enough.
Everyone else files clean, why can't they?
And yet you have repeatedly lied in this thread about having looked at the entirety of all Strava to make your cheating accusations. If you actually did that, you would have the same data I do, no? You just keep faking numbers and claiming to do things you have never done whereas I'm the real deal.
William Goodge looks to be legitimately running this transcon based on my analysis of all his Strava uploads for the journey so far. I downloaded all the Strava uploads and in general they look clean:
The only oddity is in the 2023-04-06 06_00 Part 2 where it looks like he swapped from his Garmin to Coros but the Coros either didn't record cadence or there was a sync issue. But the speeds for that recording is consistent with the other activities so no real issue.
His stride lengths are reasonable, vast majority between 5-7 feet. Speeds and cadences are also reasonable and indicative of a running activity and not on wheels. There are no superhuman bursts of speed.
Heartrate data should be disregarded. I've never relied on that since heart rate data from wristwatches are highly unreliable due to movement of the sensor. Mainly just useful to tell you something is alive.
Note that Strava tends to do unknown data smoothing on their graphs displayed on their website and should not be used since it can introduce artifacts. The data should be downloaded and graphed with known settings for analysis.
Go welcome Goodge and his team, they are telling the truth and was rightly upset that some would be questioning them.
Hey Sneakers. Honest question. Where do you get his 5-7 ft stride length off Strava downloads?
Yep and for my part, I am refusing to engage with Sneakers any more until he comes out from behind his mask. He is claiming made up nonsense about having HR data that none of us have access to - we shouldn't need to. We have 14,000k of filth, it's enough.
Everyone else files clean, why can't they?
And yet you have repeatedly lied in this thread about having looked at the entirety of all Strava to make your cheating accusations. If you actually did that, you would have the same data I do, no? You just keep faking numbers and claiming to do things you have never done whereas I'm the real deal.
Sneakers, the absolute King of Projection. I got a real kick of out calling everyone not agreeing with his propaganda as "shills." Yet more projection.
And yet you have repeatedly lied in this thread about having looked at the entirety of all Strava to make your cheating accusations. If you actually did that, you would have the same data I do, no? You just keep faking numbers and claiming to do things you have never done whereas I'm the real deal.
Sneakers, the absolute King of Projection. I got a real kick of out calling everyone not agreeing with his propaganda as "shills." Yet more projection.
Sorry, I mean I got a real kick out of HIM calling everyone else "shills."
Looks like WC has estimated these numbers based on the Whoop screenshot on recent IG post. Not that it means much, but I'm going to cross reference these with the numbers pulled from strava:
(Numbers rounded to the nearest 500 cals, 1.0km and 0.5h)
1st May: 6k, 6k, 89km, 11.5h (Significant drop in cals for similar distance & time?)
2: 6k, 6k, 85km, 11h
3: 8k, 6k, 89km, 11h
4: 8k, 7k, 85km, 11.5h
5: 8k, 7k, 89km, 11.5h
6: 6k, 5k, 82km, 11h
7: 5k, 5.5k, 89km, 11.5h
8: 5.5k, 10.5k, 91km, 12.5h (Significant + in Strava cals for an otherwise fairly "normal" / slower day)
9: 5k, 7k, 105km, 13h (Significant + in daily km, with lower cals on both Whoop & Strava)
10: 6.5k, 8k, 100km, 12.5h (Same as 9th)
11: 6.5k, 6k, 100km, 13h (Same as 9th & 10th)
12: 5.5k, 5.5k, 92km, 11.5h
13: 5.5k, 7k, 98km, 12.5h
14: 5k, 7.5k, 89km, 12h
15: 5k, 7.5k, 83km, 12h
16: 7.5k, 8.5k, 97km, 12.5h
17: 8k, 8.5k, 92km, 12h
18: 7k, 8k, 97km, 12.5h
19: 3.5k, 7.5k, 87km, 11.5h (Big discrepancy in cals Whoops vs Strava)
20: 8.5k, 9k, 97km, 13h
21: 6k, 7k, 80km, 12h
22: 8k, 9k, 97km, 13h
Was hoping to see a bit more insight here, but other than the days I've added comments on I can't see much. I scraped the data though so thought it was worth sharing anyway. Maybe someone else can spot something here?
That IS interesting and obvs Whoop should be much higher as it's all day calories not just running - bet that looks even more interesting with an avge heartrate column.
oh GO ON THEN:
(Bearing in mind Strava data will only be the average HR & power during his MOVING time. Also not sure how much can be read into it based on how BS it has been for the majority of his uploads)
(Since I'm here I'll add power data too since he seems to have that from somewhere)
Format:
Date: Whoop Cals, Strava Cals, Total Distance, Strava Moving Time, Strava Avg. HR, Strava Avg. Power
If you install the Sauce for Strava extension for Chrome it will allow you to download a TCX file for any activity containing data that isn't in the GPX file
If you install the Elevate for Strava extension for Chrome it will provide an overlay for any selected activity to drill into the data (for things like average straide length, for example)
Haha - thanks - when you look at it like that it really does look utterly ridiculous, WG is a decent sized guy, lean but not, light, his Whoop calories should be higher by a margine of 2-3k more than the Strava ones. So it looks like:
1. Heartrate is bonkers most days, can't call tech fail because Whoop calories burnt would be higher if his HR was
3. Explain the calorie burn difference (at this point I'm bugged that whoop doesn't have a pedometer (though I know they can be cheated)
4. The day we have a Whoop screenshot for - why are the strain assessments in the first and last sections so high compared to the rest with similar heartrates - and where is the missing run time?)
5. The missing 3 miles day 15/16 - not bothered looking since day 26 but can shuffle through the rest to check the rest.
6. The trends of low heartrate across all the challenge miles - NOT seen in training
7. That it also transpires his crew manager/handler has a similar issue around challenges
8. Both claiming records that don't actually exist, and falsely claiming fastest Englishman across USA
9. TBC when we know what happened to the cashDid I miss anything?
Haha - thanks - when you look at it like that it really does look utterly ridiculous, WG is a decent sized guy, lean but not, light, his Whoop calories should be higher by a margine of 2-3k more than the Strava ones. So it looks like:
1. Heartrate is bonkers most days, can't call tech fail because Whoop calories burnt would be higher if his HR was
3. Explain the calorie burn difference (at this point I'm bugged that whoop doesn't have a pedometer (though I know they can be cheated)
4. The day we have a Whoop screenshot for - why are the strain assessments in the first and last sections so high compared to the rest with similar heartrates - and where is the missing run time?)
5. The missing 3 miles day 15/16 - not bothered looking since day 26 but can shuffle through the rest to check the rest.
6. The trends of low heartrate across all the challenge miles - NOT seen in training
7. That it also transpires his crew manager/handler has a similar issue around challenges
8. Both claiming records that don't actually exist, and falsely claiming fastest Englishman across USA
9. TBC when we know what happened to the cashDid I miss anything?
I point you to WC post #2040 and some other context of "May 19".
If you install the Sauce for Strava extension for Chrome it will allow you to download a TCX file for any activity containing data that isn't in the GPX file
If you install the Elevate for Strava extension for Chrome it will provide an overlay for any selected activity to drill into the data (for things like average straide length, for example)
See, it's really simple to download the full data and all the Cockerell shills couldn't even do a Google search to find the way. Now that you've given them an answer, they will create new conspiracy theories because they don't have the ability to understand what is happening to the data or how it's processed in Elevate for Strava.
Hey Sneakers, I've got a download of that video from Will C that you so desperately want. How about I send it to you in exchange for you revealing your true identity?!
Why are you so desperate for the video anyway? You're displaying an almost pathetic level of desperation.
Is it so you can edit it for your latest YouTube video as suggested?
Hey Sneakers, I've got a download of that video from Will C that you so desperately want. How about I send it to you in exchange for you revealing your true identity?!
I think you are lieing. No one downloads a video of Will Cockerell to keep. Do you also have a Will Cockerell photo framed on your wall?
So, total elapsed time for the day = 14:00, compared with Strava = 14:05:47... fine, BUT:
Total MOVING time from 5x whoop "runs" = 2:36 + 1:03 + 2:03 + 1:03 + 2:53 = 9:38!!!
vs Strava moving time = 12:51:55!!
He has a circa 1h stop after run 1
20 mins after run 2
*2.5 HOUR AFTER RUN 3!*
14 mins after run 4.
Are these possibly the times when someone else is "muling", between 9:25 & 10:32am, and between 13:55 & 16:39pm?
I'm not tech savy or smart enough to download the Strava file to cross examine this, is someone else able to compare these times?
The whoop run times can be seen in a screen grab on his latest video on IG.
Ok, so i now have the .FIT file for May 22nd by using the Sauce for Strava extension (thanks illuminating)
Observations as follows:
Total time: 14:04:09 (close enough to Strava) Moving time: 12:26:02 (Slightly different to Strava?)
Run 1. With a start time of 6:45am, it looks normal run/walk until around 2h45 (9:30am)
Avgs = Cadence 158, HR 128bpm, Power = 187w
Walk 2. At 9:30am cadence drops to the 130s and starts to gain elevation until around 3h45 (10:30am) where it picks back up. This aligns pretty much bang on with the "1 hour stop after "run 1"" listed above observed from Whoop data.
Avgs = Cadence 136, HR 123bpm, Power = 204w
Run 3. Then looks fairly "normal" until 7h05 where is goes flat (Break?) until 7h20 (1:50pm - 2:05pm)
Avgs = Cadence 151, HR 123bpm, Power 196w
Run 4. Then more "running" 7h20 - 8h50 (14:05pm - 15:55pm) where it then goes flat for 1h to 16:55pm
Avg for moving section = Cadence 146, HR 113bpm, Power 186w
Run 5. Then fairly "normal" to the end at 14h:
Avgs = Cadence 157, HR 125bpm, Power 194w
The sections in question are #2 above and #4.
#2 can be explained by walking uphill, but was it WG? Did his whoop not detect activity due to walking?
#4 is interesting! Cadence, HR and Power ALL lower than the other "run" segments... and the times here align with where his Whoop didn't detect any activity for him between 13:55 and 16:39.
Haha - thanks - when you look at it like that it really does look utterly ridiculous, WG is a decent sized guy, lean but not, light, his Whoop calories should be higher by a margine of 2-3k more than the Strava ones. So it looks like:
1. Heartrate is bonkers most days, can't call tech fail because Whoop calories burnt would be higher if his HR was
3. Explain the calorie burn difference (at this point I'm bugged that whoop doesn't have a pedometer (though I know they can be cheated)
4. The day we have a Whoop screenshot for - why are the strain assessments in the first and last sections so high compared to the rest with similar heartrates - and where is the missing run time?)
5. The missing 3 miles day 15/16 - not bothered looking since day 26 but can shuffle through the rest to check the rest.
6. The trends of low heartrate across all the challenge miles - NOT seen in training
7. That it also transpires his crew manager/handler has a similar issue around challenges
8. Both claiming records that don't actually exist, and falsely claiming fastest Englishman across USA
9. TBC when we know what happened to the cashDid I miss anything?
I point you to WC post #2040 and some other context of "May 19".
#2 can be explained by walking uphill, but was it WG? Did his whoop not detect activity due to walking?
#4 is interesting! Cadence, HR and Power ALL lower than the other "run" segments... and the times here align with where his Whoop didn't detect any activity for him between 13:55 and 16:39.
Did I not predict you would irresponsible make new conspiracy theories after getting the data? You have no idea what you are doing with just averages.
My new tinfoil hat theory is that Sneakers and Recruiters' role are not to actually influence and sway opinion, but they are instead here to obfuscate and make everything more difficult to read. If you removed all of the nonsense arguments, this thread would be so much more legible.
Really wondering how this plays out. It's pretty clear that their team has nowhere to stand in the data-validity department. If Sneakers' "analysis" is the type of argument they can make, well, it's weak. It's an Excel histogram that counts data points. We don't even get a repository for the source code? Or the source data? Won't even explain the methodology? I mean, it's pretty basic, but at least explain what you did and why you did it.
So what happens next? They finish, their believers believe and the nerds here shake their fists? The BroJos have some sway and Rojo made it seem like he might do something. I suspect more than one media outlet of sorts has picked this up in some capacity. I'm not a fan, but maybe Citius is on it. This certainly could be national news, not front page of the Associated Press or anything quite like that. But, it's got it all: a handsome swindler, a noble-on-the-surface-level mission, potential agents of chaos, and a bunch of bored sporting-integrity-bound internet vigilantes. A real thriller!
My guess is that it's more of a full story once they finish, directly deny any wrongdoing to prying journalists, and celebrate like they really did the thing in the face of extremely contradictory evidence.
I suspect given a team GB ultra runner made a lot of press in the UK for cheating recently the British press might be quite unforgiving and inquisitive given the right prods.
