LRC Mike Rossi article is finally up!

Yes, I'm well aware of special event (contest) insurance. And perhaps the Rojos insured their challenge, although I seriously doubt it. But whether the offer is insured or not my point stands, if he meets the criteria set forth in the challenge, he is entitled to the money offered.

You obviously haven't spent much time there.

I couldn't care less about Mike Rossi, but I'm having a hell of a good time trolling the critics. One in particular, of course.

And I can assure you I would never go to Rydale, PA. It seems like there is a wedding industry war being waged, and I wouldn't want to get caught in the crossfire.

People need to drop the idea that some major news outlet is going to publish a story about a guy who cheated on a marathon 10 months ago - and didn't even win money for it. Nobody cares.

But a story about a 300 lb. fraud artist wedding photographer waging war on the internet against a wedding DJ who is a former colleague of Kelly Ripa, and who has hair that is too good to be true?

That's ratings, baby.

with you on that Mr Troll

Great article that lacks one thing called NEW EVIDENCE.

It's a fine article, a bit long though. But my real question is: who effing cares? This dude probably cheated, what's it to you? I thought this was a sport about personal accomplishment. Was someone out of the money because of this? Did someone miss out on Boston because of this? Or could it be jealousy of the attention he got as a Boston runner?

RossiCheated wrote:

They would have to pay him. This is essentially contractual. If he meets his end of the deal, they have to pay him (very much like a hole-in-one contest or half court basketball shot). It would be an open and shut lawsuit otherwise.

I would not have offered the money for any distance under ten miles, but it ain't my money, so game on!

How would he be entitled to the money if no contract was signed?

good article with compelling arguments. would have been great to have it published during the heat of the controversy.

There is no requirement to have a signed contract. They have made an offer. He can accept the offer and then meet the terms (running a race under the required time) and they have to pay.

When I come to a hole-in-one contest in a charity golf outing and hit an ace (not that I could), I get the car. Nothing is ever signed. It is just offered, I accept the offer, and meet my end of the consideration by knocking it in the hole. They also stipulated the time frame in which the offer stands, but there are very few other conditions.

Trust me, if he runs the time in a legit race (measured course and whatnot), they are on the hook for the money.

I think he would have to "accept" the offer/contract. However, participation in a race could possibly be considered as "acceptance"? Then again, contracts law class was a LONG time ago!

RossiCheated wrote:

Trust me, if he runs the time in a legit race (measured course and whatnot), they are on the hook for the money.

Bullshit, go visit a lawyer. Never trust someone who says "Trust me".

bkrunner wrote:

http://www.letsrun.com/news/2015/05/the-evidence-is-overwhelming-mike-rossi-the-viral-marathon-dad-is-a-marathon-cheat-and-should-never-have-been-on-the-starting-line-in-boston/

Thank you Rojo!!!!!

Typically there is a statement of acceptance and we sign contracts in our day to day dealings. It is not always necessary.

Here's an explanation that helps:

Acceptance can be given verbally, in writing, or inferred by action which clearly indicates acceptance (performance of the contract). In any case, the acceptance must conform with the method prescribed by the offerer for it to be effective.

So, if he runs a race and gets the time and then says, "Here are the results, pay me," they don't really have an out to say, "You never accepted," or "You had to tell us what race you were running," because those provisions are not stated in the offer. His running of the time would be considered performance of his part of the contract (his consideration).

However, if he believes he can and will run the time at a given race (and per the offer he apparently has unlimited attempts), he might want to send them an email that says, "I'm running X 5K tomorrow and will provide you with the results, should I break 20:00. You are welcome to come and observe should you be so inclined." But he doesn't really have to do that.

Fine, I'll retract the "trust me" statement.

Look it the fvck up for yourself or call a lawyer and ask. Then say, "Gee, that was a waste of my fvcking time, because that guy was right."

Either way.

I'm excited that LRC has finally published its Mike Rossi article. I'm not disappointed - I thought the article did a good job in taking a firm line and laying out the evidence. However, there were two pieces of analysis from the Mike Rossi thread that I was sad to see get left out (although many more were included!)

First was RobE's statistical analysis indicating that, based on a database of 100 runners who ran a half marathon followed by a marathon within the next 90 days (like Mike Rossi), there is only a 1% chance that Mike Rossi would have run faster than 3:24 in the marathon. This was based on a regression analysis of marathon times vs half marathon times. This line of argument is complementary to GregTR's analysis of Mike's race times quoted in the article. It is a way of making the point that not only is Mike's 3:11 at Lehigh an outlier from his other times (as GregTR demonstrates), but also that outliers of this nature are very unusual (as RobE demonstrates with his regression analysis). Go to page 79 of N/T for more details -

http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=6479539&page=78

In my opinion this analysis is awesome against a skeptic who wants to argue that such a big improvement isn't that unusual. Well yes, in fact it is quantifiably quite unusual!

Second, I was happy to see my 'z-test' analysis referenced in the article (an analysis of the number of locations that the 100 finishers closest to Rossi were captured on the course). However, a stronger version of this argument has been developed. Namely the 'checkpoint' analysis which looks at what fraction of the top 200 finishers are seen at each of 5 photo checkpoints. Based on this analysis the chances of Mike not being photographed assuming he ran the whole course are about 1 in 586,000. See page 422 of the Rossi thread for more details -

http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=6479539&page=421

. Not only is the checkpoint analysis statistically more damning than the analysis of # of locations photographed, it is also simpler and easier to explain (for example it doesn't have to rely on a Pearson's chi-squared test to establish the normality of the # of locations). The article does talk a bit about the checkpoints, mentioning that all of the top 200 non-Rossi finishers are seen at one of them, and linking to the great 9min video which lays out the statistics. But I would've liked to see the statistical argument in black and white for those who don't click on the link. 1 in 586,000 chance of no photos at these checkpoints assuming he ran the whole race - powerful, no?

Still, these are relatively minor points. It would be hard to read this article and not be persuaded that Mike Rossi didn't run the race. BroJos, I'm really glad you finally published it!!!

As time goes on I am left wondering one thing: Who feels more regret about the decision they made?

Mike Rossi for cheating or the marathon committee for declaring the overwhelming evidence as not conclusive that he cheated and failing to disqualify him?

My bet is if they could go back in time, both parties would do something different, but I think the marathon committee has to regret their terrible decision more. Doing the right thing for them would have been so easy. Rossi doesn't seem like the regret type. But the marathon committee is probably made up of good people who want to do the right thing and they blew it.

Glad to see LR is making Rossi Walk the Talk. Back on May 10th I posted:

"Then do some real BQ training, like running 70+ miles per week - every week. Then go run a 3:11 marathon, and prove everyone wrong. This is your only shot at redemption. You talked the talk. It's time to walk the walk. Good luck."

Read more:

http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=6479539&page=132#ixzz3g5hd03U9

I think LR should rescind any offer of money for running distances that are less than a marathon, and increase the offer to $26.2k if he runs a BQ marathon by 7/16/16 that meets this criteria:

(1) It must be on a BQ certified course,

(2) MR must provide 30 days notice before the race to LR,

(3) MR must disclose his GPS data from the race to LR,

(4) MR and the race director must allow MR to be filmed the entire way via another runner, bicyclist, etc... and

(5) MR must release any right to any videos or photographs taken of him on his redemption run.

My friend, as suggested go see a lawyer, show him/her what you've written above and then come back.

RossiCheated wrote:

As time goes on I am left wondering one thing: Who feels more regret about the decision they made?

As you ask

NEITHER, only the obsessives like you on here, so wonder no more.

mileage_man wrote:

I'm excited that LRC has finally published its Mike Rossi article. I'm not disappointed

You should be there's no NEW EVIDENCE.