LetsRun.com Needs to Come up With A Policy for Race Cheaters

Just stand up to Paula and tell her the threads are staying up.

How is it different with respect to what I said ? Because that's not ALL that I said.News site's (a) disclose who THEY are and (b) check their facts. Anonymous message boards don't. look at the bulls** "Centro busted" thread last yearlook at the stuff about Chebet .. an interview he denies ever happened, and even the interviewer said later never happened. Yet a multipage message board thread about it persists still.I posted above that I think even the news articles archives is unfair to people today. I think the internet provides a drastic change in ways that can be very unfair to people today. And that includes online reviews, it includes news archives, etc, etc. Did you read what I posted? I'll repeat it here

A newspaper might've .... and today, that newspaper archive is online, and a single keyword away from your computer monitor. And yes, I think that's (often) extremely unfair to people.

In answer to the OP, my opinion is definitely time limit it in most cases. Sure, if Wilson Kipsang cheats, that's a very different story to some guy claiming a 2:37min time when he really ran 3:02.

Instead of deleting the thread, how about just renaming it to "so and so proven innocent." or "so and so confesses or explains what happened"

Maybe in return for their side of the story, you could just remove the more slanderous posts?

Anyone accusing a runner of cheating should be required to identify themselves and supply their full name publicly.

If it's clear with solid evidence the person cheated I think the thread should remain. The message boards aren't journalism. You aren't slandering them by posting a list on the home page of all the Boston cheaters. But if people are finding evidence that a person is cheating it's important for our sport to wash out the people who try to sully it.

I would respond with the evidence presented. But there is no reason the remove the threads. In fact you should do more. You should reach out the race directors and warn them of these fools.

Blah Blah Blah wrote:

Anyone accusing a runner of cheating should be required to identify themselves and supply their full name publicly.

^This

Wtfunny wrote:

[quote]Blah Blah Blah wrote:

Anyone accusing a runner of cheating should be required to identify themselves and supply their full name publicly.

^This

You can email the accuser @

wtfunny wrote:

How is it different with respect to what I said ? Because that's not ALL that I said.

News site's (a) disclose who THEY are and (b) check their facts. Anonymous message boards don't.

look at the bulls** "Centro busted" thread last year

look at the stuff about Chebet .. an interview he denies ever happened, and even the interviewer said later never happened. Yet a multipage message board thread about it persists still.

1) With the Centro thread. We included his tweets at the bottom of it disputing what people were saying:

2) With the Chebet thread in the very first post we have a link saying that it was being refuted:

wejo wrote:

1) With the Centro thread. We included his tweets at the bottom of it disputing what people were saying:

http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=5669127

2) With the Chebet thread in the very first post we have a link saying that it was being refuted:

http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=6430919

Hey Wejo

I saw the inclusion of Centro's tweets. In a thread that is many, many pages long that doesn't have a single actual supporting piece of evidence for the accusations, you guys included 2 tweets from himself saying there was nothing to it on page 1.

Not every visitor is going to land on page 1.

The fact that Centro and his manager publicly refuted it shows how harmful and damaging this stuff can be .. and here, years later, with still nothing to support the accusations at all, all this commentary is still online. Why?

Chebet's interview wasn't "refuted". The "interviewer" himself acknowledged that it did NOT happen.

Anyway, I think you asking the question you did in the OP is a good thing, and I hope you consider deleting threads that have anonymous people accusing people of whatever transgressions. IMO, if someone wants to have a conversation accusing anyone of cheating, the accuser/s needs to be willing to stand up and say who they are.

And if it's some non-pro runner cheating in an 85 minute half, then either report it to the RD, or ignore it. Either way, don't leave it on the boards indefinitely. My $0.02.

Did you come up with a policy for marathon cheaters?

It should be different with public figures.

This thread's

http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=6499065&page=0

unfair. Why humiliate one unfortunate person when there are probably thousands of cheaters? Look up any marathon and U find multiple cheaters in minutes.

Policyy? If they email you as owners of this site, apologize or explain away the result, agree to be DQ'd, then you should delete the thread. IMO.

Public figures? Put a note on the thread at the start that says they made good.

I hope RDs stand up and take notice. I don't have much or any tolerance for cheaters. A new requirement for USATF certification should require a minimum of 2 intermediate timing mats and video/camera monitoring check points. There was a Chicago Times article a few years back that said they caught about 250 cheaters in the race one year. That's 0.5%. And they have good verification. It's not a small issue.

That said, I don't know how weeks of public shaming is helpful, but overall seems like this time the sleuths here did their job. Now the onus is on the RD.

wejo wrote:

In one I got last year, I wrote the brother back and said I'd be open to the idea of removing the thread if the person would just admit to cheating.

We'll let you clean up the crap in your pants, give you some clothes, turn off the air conditioner and let you go home tomorrow, if you'll just admit that you killed the President.

So long as people get into Boston by running two miles through the parking lot of DisneyWorld (between the starting line and finish line of the marathon there), I will report it.

When someone has a history of being disqualified from other marathons and then tries to pass off a bullshit 49 minute second half of a marathon, I will report it.

http://i58.tinypic.com/eqxdt2.jpg

x box fit wrote:

I hope RDs stand up and take notice. I don't have much or any tolerance for cheaters. A new requirement for USATF certification should require a minimum of 2 intermediate timing mats and video/camera monitoring check points. There was a Chicago Times article a few years back that said they caught about 250 cheaters in the race one year. That's 0.5%. And they have good verification. It's not a small issue..

At 0.5% you are wasting your time. If you want RDs to be forced to have mats, and review all race data for "accuracy," and watch video to prove every entered runner went through and matched the mats time, you are out of your mind.

Who is going to pay the cost of 100% surveillance to catch that 0.5%? Races fees will go up. Entries will go down. Races will die.

Perhaps email them back and say that you are in favour of free speech. Free speech being the right to fair comment of course, i.e. comments that are not baseless or malicious.

Do you really expect us to believe that Tom Brady emailed you??? ;-)

I made a wrong turn in a marathon last year and ended up following the course for the half-marathon. I wasn't the only one because I happened to be following the guy in front of me. Anyway, I was on a mission at the time to BQ, but the detour I had taken would add over 2 miles to the 26.2, so I decided to turn around and head home and cut my losses, saving my legs for another day. The other guy said he was going to run a 28 mile "ultra".

As I neared the finish line with people cheering me on (I'm pretty sure they thought I was running the half), I almost considered running across it just for giggles, as if I had just run a sub 1:30 marathon. I tell no lie -- I actually thought of LetsRun at that very moment, and even though the time would be so preposterous that no one could possibly think it was real, I thought better of it. I ran waaaay around the finish line and found a race official, told them the story, and gave them my chip.

These threads on cheaters, so long as they are accurate representations of the facts, are deterrents to cheaters. Knowing that there is an independent group of people monitoring the results of average joes who think they can get one over is a good thing. It may actually be the ONLY thing that prevents a cheater from cheating -- otherwise, what have they got to lose?

row row rowbury your boat wrote:

Maybe you should take it case by case and let others (a jury of peers?)

I am imagining a system where 12 registered user names are selected to review the case and evidence and determine the disposition of the case. We could even have a stable of public defenders. There always seems to be some "devil's advocates" on these cheater threads.

too many cheats to count? wrote:

Did you come up with a policy for marathon cheaters?

It should be different with public figures.

This thread's

http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=6499065&page=0

unfair. Why humiliate one unfortunate person when there are probably thousands of cheaters? Look up any marathon and U find multiple cheaters in minutes.

Policyy? If they email you as owners of this site, apologize or explain away the result, agree to be DQ'd, then you should delete the thread. IMO.

Public figures? Put a note on the thread at the start that says they made good.

The person from the other thread is just as culpable as Rossi. Should we wait until local media picks up her story, and then humiliate her. There is definitive proof she cheated--she is still denying it. I really don't get how she is all that different from Mike Rossi--and what warranted removing that thread in particular. Seems rather reactionary to me. Wejo/Rojo, If you are against cheaters, and OK with outing some--you should be OK with outing all.