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

Doubler wrote:

I really don't think writing the sponsors will have an effect. I am strongly opposed to that. This is a marathon that supports a local charity. Do we really want to try to hurt these charities because of one cheater.

There are unfortunately dozens of incompetent RD's. I've run into a few that won't issue even DQ's to even more obvious cheaters than Mike.

I suggest everyone take a step back.

I am of the opinion that Barb's hands are probably tied - she may not be solely to blame for this debacle. She is not as innocent as the principal mentioned in Mike's viral letter--but I doubt she had the authority to issue a DQ unilaterally once this hit the media. The board, or committee, or whatever probably figured the damage was done and didn't want to deal with Mike any more. Despite the waves many have made on their FB page..they can easily ignore that. They probably felt that disqualifying Mike was the path of least resistance (they were wrong).

At this point, there will be no more direct evidence. We can package the photos however we want--the photos won't result in a DQ.

Going forward, they are adding mats. That's probably the best we could hope for after they made the decision not to disqualify Mike.

Participation is not going to decline because of this--and what would we gain if it did? Less money to the charity.

I hope there is some sort of mainstream article showing the Father of the Year's lame attempts at intimidation as well as proclaiming that he did cheat as fact. Ken would likely get caught in the cross-hairs of any such article--but he doesn't seem to care. That would be as good as an actual DQ in my mind. He ran Boston no matter what happens with his Lehigh Valley result.

That's where I stand. I probably won't post again unless there's a real development. So now the trolls can swing the pendulum back from saying I am obsessed to saying that I have been quiet and Mike silenced me. I just don't see the need to get in the middle of the personal battle between members of the Greater Philadelphia area wedding industry that this has become.

Doubler wrote:

Doubler wrote:

I really don't think writing the sponsors will have an effect. I am strongly opposed to that. This is a marathon that supports a local charity. Do we really want to try to hurt these charities because of one cheater.

There are unfortunately dozens of incompetent RD's. I've run into a few that won't issue even DQ's to even more obvious cheaters than Mike.

I suggest everyone take a step back.

I am of the opinion that Barb's hands are probably tied - she may not be solely to blame for this debacle. She is not as innocent as the principal mentioned in Mike's viral letter--but I doubt she had the authority to issue a DQ unilaterally once this hit the media. The board, or committee, or whatever probably figured the damage was done and didn't want to deal with Mike any more. Despite the waves many have made on their FB page..they can easily ignore that. They probably felt that disqualifying Mike was the path of least resistance (they were wrong).

At this point, there will be no more direct evidence. We can package the photos however we want--the photos won't result in a DQ.

Going forward, they are adding mats. That's probably the best we could hope for after they made the decision not to disqualify Mike.

Participation is not going to decline because of this--and what would we gain if it did? Less money to the charity.

I hope there is some sort of mainstream article showing the Father of the Year's lame attempts at intimidation as well as proclaiming that he did cheat as fact. Ken would likely get caught in the cross-hairs of any such article--but he doesn't seem to care. That would be as good as an actual DQ in my mind. He ran Boston no matter what happens with his Lehigh Valley result.

That's where I stand. I probably won't post again unless there's a real development. So now the trolls can swing the pendulum back from saying I am obsessed to saying that I have been quiet and Mike silenced me. I just don't see the need to get in the middle of the personal battle between members of the Greater Philadelphia area wedding industry that this has become.

'a real development'

Cease and desist, articles, etc. real

Developments.

Perry Mason wrote:

Rossi would get destroyed, which is why Peter Finley was all but begging Rossi to sue him.

Peter Finley wrote:

Congratulations to Lets Run and thank you for joining me and others in openly calling Mike Rossi a cheater.

Mike, you have some wonderful options! You can:

1) Sue people like me and Lets Run

2) Train and earn the $10,000 they have put on offer

3) Do all of the above and make a ton of money!

I wish you the best, cheater.

Posted just for you Mike Enjoy wrote:

Cowabunga wrote:

Wow, Mike and his lawyer are going to have their work cut out for them with this fella from the above articles comments: Peter Finley · Assistant Dean for Undergraduate Affairs/Associate Professor at Nova Southeastern University, Huizenga Business School. It's probably the best summation of this whole saga I've come across, make sure you read the whole thing.

Here's an extract from his bio:

"Dr. Finley is the Assistant Dean for Undergraduate Affairs and an associate professor of sport and recreation management in the H. Wayne Huizenga School of Business and Entrepreneurship. His areas of specialization include sport ethics, sport law, and the sociology of sport. He has authored numerous scholarly articles on various sport management topics and is a regular presenter at several major international conferences in the field. Dr. Finley was the recipient of the 2008 Huizenga School Excellence in Teaching Award."

http://www.huizenga.nova.edu/Faculty.cfm/pfinley/

Awesome, so good I did a full cut and paste so Mike can read it:

(Update: Ken's posted a comment too which Mike will like even less.)

"Peter Finley · Assistant Dean for Undergraduate Affairs/Associate Professor at Nova Southeastern University, Huizenga Business School

What an awesome story! I'm wondering, though, why you didn't cover the rest of it? Your wonder-dad, Mike Rossi, cheated his way into the Boston Marathon.

He posted a qualifying time at the Lehigh Valley Health Network Via Marathon. He took a selfie at the start line, reappeared at the finish line, but was never photographed on the course at any of the photo checkpoints in between. Every runner was photographed multiple times (generally as many as a dozen times at varied locations) but Rossi was never photographed. Time stamps on the photos show that pictures were generally being taken at a rate of one every 1.25 seconds as the runners went past and you can often see the runners in frame and everything for 100 yards behind them. Rossi never showed up along the race route. The odds of him running the marathon and not being photographed have been calculated at close to one in 600,000. At one point, about six miles into the race, 199 of the top 200 runners are clearly photographed. You can guess who was missing and should have been right in the middle of the stream of runners. Lehigh is not a big marathon. Just a few miles into the race the runners have stretched out and getting photographs of everyone (to be sold to the runners later) is very easy. Everyone who ran across that bridge was photographed. Mike Rossi wasn't because he was in a car on the highway at the time.

In addition, Rossi's race history does not support that he has the ability to run a 3:11 marathon. All his previous races indicated he should run between 3:40 and 4:00 (he claims he never tried in ANY race, EVER, until his miracle perfomance at Lehigh). Rossi ran a predictable 4:01 at Boston, where security measures are in place to prevent cheating. Rossi's bragging posts on Twitter and Facebook about previous races do not support that he NEVER tried in ANY previous race.

The race management team at Lehigh declined to disqualify Rossi but left the door open to consider further evidence, should it be made available. It seems they don't believe that his complete absence from photos or his obvious inability to run 3:11 are conclusive. They probably want a witness who saw him leave the course after his "chip" crossed the start line or saw him jump back in just prior to the finish. The running community is angered by this, as it essentially means that a runner is allowed to cheat, provided they are good at it. The race management team did NOT, however, exonerate Mike Rossi. They wrote, "the Marathon committee concluded that while there is data from Rossi’s participation in other racing events indicating that Rossi’s time may not be accurate, there is not conclusive evidence..." and continued, "Therefore the LVHN Via Marathon Committee concluded that Rossi will not be disqualified unless additional conclusive information arises in the future." They also promised "the course will have a minimum of six timing mats - at the start, finish line and four additional on-course locations. In addition, there will be video surveillance of the course at several locations which Via will archive annually." In other words, they don't want to get "Rossied" again.

If you would care to watch the video of Mike Rossi NOT qualifying for the Boston Marathon, you can do so here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vGilRGr2GlI

Or just watch Rossi NOT cross the bridge within the top 200 runners (he finished 114th), here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DxKfEiOfGmY

Whether you like the letter to the principal or not, Mike Rossi cheated his way into the Boston Marathon.

And Mike, if you don't like this post, you are welcome to sue me for defamation and I'll crush you in court."

the loophole wrote:

Maybe it's been said already somewhere in the 11,000+ posts in this thread, but given the Brojos' latest challenge to Rossi, it bears resurrecting:

Where, in the Lehigh Valley Marathon rules (or, for that matter, the rules of any race), does it explicitly state that in order to get credit for "finishing," with a certain "finishing time," you have to cover the entire course on foot, under your own power?

As runners, we take this for granted. But from a legal perspective, I'm not sure how it holds up.

Some races (for instance, Badwater) explicitly state in the rules that the participant must cover every inch of the course on foot, under their own power, within the time limit, to get credit for "finishing," with a certain "finishing time." This provides specific grounds for disqualification.

But most races don't spell this out, instead assuming that it's commonly understood that participants will cover the course as laid out, and complete the entire course on foot, under their own power, or risk disqualification.

As likely (and as reprehensible) that it is that Rossi likely crossed the Lehigh Valley Marathon starting line to active his chip, left the course, got in his car, drove to a point near the finish, got back on the course, and crossed the finish line, as far as I can tell, there was nothing in the race rules that explicitly forbade this action as a means of "finishing" the race.

(This would also explain the odd use of the words "accurate" and "inaccurate" in the LVM statement regarding Rossi's finishing time. If there were no specific rules set forth for disqualifying a runner, they're on shaky ground in disqualifying him based evidence that suggests that he "cut the course." As a certified Boston-qualifying course, the race is responsible for reporting "accurate" finishing times, and nothing that Rossi did would have made his finishing time "inaccurate." Maybe if he had tampered with the race clock or official results, they would have had grounds to disqualify him. But no matter how Rossi got to the finish line, it's difficult to dispute the time on the finishing clock as he crossed the line, especially since there is a photo of him crossing the finish line with the clock clearly visible.)

In fewer words, what Rossi likely did was morally repugnant, but technically not against the rules.

My concern now is that he will find a race with similarly poorly-worded rules that would not explicitly forbid the same kind of cheating, and exploit that loophole to legally (albeit not honorably) win the money.

the loophole wrote:

Maybe it's been said already somewhere in the 11,000+ posts in this thread, but given the Brojos' latest challenge to Rossi, it bears resurrecting:

Where, in the Lehigh Valley Marathon rules (or, for that matter, the rules of any race), does it explicitly state that in order to get credit for "finishing," with a certain "finishing time," you have to cover the entire course on foot, under your own power?

As runners, we take this for granted. But from a legal perspective, I'm not sure how it holds up.

Some races (for instance, Badwater) explicitly state in the rules that the participant must cover every inch of the course on foot, under their own power, within the time limit, to get credit for "finishing," with a certain "finishing time." This provides specific grounds for disqualification.

But most races don't spell this out, instead assuming that it's commonly understood that participants will cover the course as laid out, and complete the entire course on foot, under their own power, or risk disqualification.

As likely (and as reprehensible) that it is that Rossi likely crossed the Lehigh Valley Marathon starting line to active his chip, left the course, got in his car, drove to a point near the finish, got back on the course, and crossed the finish line, as far as I can tell, there was nothing in the race rules that explicitly forbade this action as a means of "finishing" the race.

(This would also explain the odd use of the words "accurate" and "inaccurate" in the LVM statement regarding Rossi's finishing time. If there were no specific rules set forth for disqualifying a runner, they're on shaky ground in disqualifying him based evidence that suggests that he "cut the course." As a certified Boston-qualifying course, the race is responsible for reporting "accurate" finishing times, and nothing that Rossi did would have made his finishing time "inaccurate." Maybe if he had tampered with the race clock or official results, they would have had grounds to disqualify him. But no matter how Rossi got to the finish line, it's difficult to dispute the time on the finishing clock as he crossed the line, especially since there is a photo of him crossing the finish line with the clock clearly visible.)

In fewer words, what Rossi likely did was morally repugnant, but technically not against the rules.

My concern now is that he will find a race with similarly poorly-worded rules that would not explicitly forbid the same kind of cheating, and exploit that loophole to legally (albeit not honorably) win the money.