Did Mike Rossi (viral marathon dad) cheat his way into Boston?

mileage_man wrote:

Thanks, hmmmmmmm! That video was awesome. Succinct, clear, and damning.

Two minor quibbles - first, we want to use the data about the other 199 runners to draw conclusions about Mike. So Mike should be removed from the pool of runners that we are considering when we are estimating the probability of a runner getting missed at one of the checkpoints. According to this reasoning, if we stick with P(not photo'd, assuming you ran) = (# not photo'd)/(# who ran) - more on that in a second - the new numbers we get are:

P(Mike not photo'd, assuming Mike ran) = (20/199)*(0/199)*(64/199)*(81/199)*(4/199) = 0.

This brings us to quibble #2, which is that we're using the wrong way to estimate the probability of getting missed at each checkpoint. The method used treats the the 200 runners as a population, whereas instead it is more appropriate to treat the 199 other runners as a sample from some larger distribution. As above, this is because we want to use the data from the other runners to evaluate the plausibility of the data we have about Mike, under the assumption that Mike actually ran (i.e. under the assumption that Mike Rossi is drawn from the same sample as the 199 other runners). It's a minor difference, but it can matter a lot in cases like the mile 7 checkpoint where Mike was the only one missed. Anyway, the 'right' way to do it is using 'Laplace's rule of succession' which suggests that if you perform n trials, and achieve s successes, the probability of success should be estimated as (s+1)/(n+2). See here for example:

http://www.cut-the-knot.org/Probability/RuleOfSuccession.shtml

. This can be formally derived from the axioms of probability theory, assuming a 50% prior for the probability of success. In any case, this means that the numbers end up as follows:

P(Mike not photo'd, assuming Mike ran) = (21/201)*(1/201)*(65/201)*(82/201)*(5/201) = 1.7 x 10^-6.

So the slightly tweaked numbers are 1.7 out of a million (instead of 1.75 out of a million), or 1 in 586 thousand (instead of 1 in 572 thousand).

Thanks again for the link to the video, and sorry for having been behind the times. Obviously the quibbles I pointed out don't affect the conclusions of the analysis in a serious way, but I do feel that 1 in 586 thousand is the more defensible number (for all you probability purists out there).

LoserMikeRossi wrote:

Doubler wrote:

I don't think anyone had issue with your bringing up the accomplice theory..the issue came when you wouldn't listen or would dismiss the criticism or rebuttals to your theory. You also lost most of us when you suggested recording the possible conspirator.

Yeah, and I see your point, but I think it could have gotten cleared up had we discussed it.

There was never intention of calling anybody and outright accusing them of anything. Nobody ever suggested that. The purpose of contacting runners was to ask them of they had seen Rossi and if they had ever been contacted by the committee.

I had contacted one runner via email. Reached out to a few others with FB friend requests. And another presented contacted anode runner already.

And I just said that if we talk on the photo with somebody that it should recorded so that their statement can't be considered hearsay, by whomever will be looking over the evidence. Otherwise we could just claim to have talked to 30 runners with no actual proof that we did.

That was the purpose.

LoserMikeRossi wrote:

Doubler wrote:

I don't think anyone had issue with your bringing up the accomplice theory..the issue came when you wouldn't listen or would dismiss the criticism or rebuttals to your theory. You also lost most of us when you suggested recording the possible conspirator.

Yeah, and I see your point, but I think it could have gotten cleared up had we discussed it.

There was never intention of calling anybody and outright accusing them of anything. Nobody ever suggested that. The purpose of contacting runners was to ask them of they had seen Rossi and if they had ever been contacted by the committee.

I had contacted one runner via email. Reached out to a few others with FB friend requests. And another presented contacted anode runner already.

And I just said that if we talk on the photo with somebody that it should recorded so that their statement can't be considered hearsay, by whomever will be looking over the evidence. Otherwise we could just claim to have talked to 30 runners with no actual proof that we did.

That was the purpose.

NoMoreKen wrote:

LoserMikeRossi wrote:

Yeah, and I see your point, but I think it could have gotten cleared up had we discussed it.

There was never intention of calling anybody and outright accusing them of anything. Nobody ever suggested that. The purpose of contacting runners was to ask them of they had seen Rossi and if they had ever been contacted by the committee.

I had contacted one runner via email. Reached out to a few others with FB friend requests. And another presented contacted anode runner already.

And I just said that if we talk on the photo with somebody that it should recorded so that their statement can't be considered hearsay, by whomever will be looking over the evidence. Otherwise we could just claim to have talked to 30 runners with no actual proof that we did.

That was the purpose.

Ken - no matter the topic, you were resolute in your mission and when people tried to get you to tone down your personal, family, professional and other non-running attacks, you became more obnoxious and tried to rationalize away your behavior and sounded like an elementary school kid by saying yeah but he did this and that. To make matter worse, you tried controlling what was said here via your own secret facebook society. Finally, you still never saw how you appeared to be a bully here just as you were accusing someone else of being. Ugh, stop and leave, again.

LoserMikeRossi wrote:

Doubler wrote:

I don't think anyone had issue with your bringing up the accomplice theory..the issue came when you wouldn't listen or would dismiss the criticism or rebuttals to your theory. You also lost most of us when you suggested recording the possible conspirator.

Yeah, and I see your point, but I think it could have gotten cleared up had we discussed it.

There was never intention of calling anybody and outright accusing them of anything. Nobody ever suggested that. The purpose of contacting runners was to ask them of they had seen Rossi and if they had ever been contacted by the committee.

I had contacted one runner via email. Reached out to a few others with FB friend requests. And another presented contacted anode runner already.

And I just said that if we talk on the photo with somebody that it should recorded so that their statement can't be considered hearsay, by whomever will be looking over the evidence. Otherwise we could just claim to have talked to 30 runners with no actual proof that we did.

That was the purpose.

For the love of God wrote:

LoserMikeRossi wrote:

Yeah, and I see your point, but I think it could have gotten cleared up had we discussed it.

There was never intention of calling anybody and outright accusing them of anything. Nobody ever suggested that. The purpose of contacting runners was to ask them of they had seen Rossi and if they had ever been contacted by the committee.

I had contacted one runner via email. Reached out to a few others with FB friend requests. And another presented contacted anode runner already.

And I just said that if we talk on the photo with somebody that it should recorded so that their statement can't be considered hearsay, by whomever will be looking over the evidence. Otherwise we could just claim to have talked to 30 runners with no actual proof that we did.

That was the purpose.

GO AWAY KEN!

You shouldn't try to start posting here just a couple days after everybody told you to get loss. You have never run races and never will.

You need to take this elsewhere.

Don't post here anymore you're just trolling and not very good at it.

GO

AWAY

KEN